| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2006 08:20:00 PM |
| Object: |
Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious poems that I've been writing in
the last month or so for poetry class, as I promised in a previous
thread. Most are just rhyming couplets with a little internal rhyming.
I have some more free verse, but I'll probably post that later. As I
mentioned, I do want to see if some publications would be interested in
reprinting these, so I don't want them entirely in the public domain.
If any of you all have recommendations for where I might try to get some
of them published, I'd be interested to hear it.
(BTW, I've got lots more, some in various stages of construction).
Sorry the post is so long, but I didn't want to post everything
separately.
I thought I'd start out with some shorter, simpler ones. Here's
one is called "Damn that Scam".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Damn that fever-brained scam.
That evil artifice
That mind-control device
Known as Jesus Christ.
God and religion
Is nothing short of mental circumcision.
Pre-frontal lobe incision
Theology's a bogus apology
The defense of nonsense
How do you keep an idiot in suspense
<pause>
Its lies lack the power to convince.
The beasts known as priests
Have their brains soaked in Fraud
A professional class of liars for Gawd
Contortionists who twist their sacred Texts
Obscuring defects
And interpreting out of context
They'll manufacture any excuse
To justify divine abuse
They'll make up any lie, on the fly,
To defend holy writ.
They think it's clever.
I think it's *****.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is one that's just a short series
of modified Nietzsche quotes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Herr Nietzsche Sprach"
'God is dead and only the ignorant weep'
Bleating like a flock of forlorn sheep.
Standing vigil for two thousand lonely years
In the vain hope their shepherd reappears.
Their simple, trusting nature being thus,
They'd worship the shadow of a corpse without a fuss.
Faith never moved a mountain o'er
Though it's made some where there were none before.
For faith means not wanting to know what's true.
Is the fruit of knowledge such a toxic brew?
A casual cajole with a lunatic's soul
Shows that faith proves nothing on the whole.
Except that convictions are a more dangerous foes of truth than lies
For they prevent competing views to rise.
Mr. Nietzsche had a potent flair
To see through a matter and to lay the truth bare.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a longer one that talks about theocratic republicanism and the
way that their professed political agendas often completely
contradiction the teachings of xianity. It's a somewhat long one (over
500 words with around 100 rhymes in it).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Je$u$ Wants a Tax Cut
Jesus wants a tax cut.
Ma friends, can I hear an Amen!
And if we raise the minimum wage,
It would crucify Him all over again.
Yes, Jesus wants a tax cut
For every millionaire
Of the poor and the lame
'Tis a terrible shame
Now let's bow our heads, and pretend to care.
Here I thought that He taught
A camel could more easily ply
The passage through a needle's eye
Than for the rich to beg or buy
A little piece of that heavenly pie.
(Then again, perhaps they can wheedle
Tiny camels or giant needles)
Now don't get me wrong.
As I've followed along
Your salvation sounds reasonably priced.
But from my perspective,
While it seems effective,
The God that you worship is Mammon, not Christ.
Onward Xian Soldiers, fighting for the God of high-priced oil
Make no mistake as they ride terror's wake.
Their virtue is theft over honest toil.
And if Gentle Jebus demands
That you die in the sand
Your cheerful compliance to his command,
Earns you a ticket to the Promised Land.
Your sacraments, are dollars and cents
See how "In God We Trust" encrusts all our money, by accident.
And, which God would that Be,
Enshrined on the altar of our Currency?
To whom shall we render
All that's legal and tender?
How much will real estate be worth,
When the meek finally do inherit the Earth?
And when did the bible decree,
"Buy tawdry wares in remembrance of Me"?
Is red and green ink the wine we must drink
When we imbibe the blood of this Lord?
Does it wash clean our debts
Or is it just a safe bet
That seems easy enough to afford.
Preachers may play the game
of trying to claim
I must hate Jesus
Because I label theo-crazy egregious
I'd just rather not let you breed confusion
Between the bible and the constitution
Despite facile semantic tricks,
It's clear that church and state don't mix
The First Amendment says that religion's our own decision,
While the First Commandment locks our choice in mental prison
We're free to preach the bible or slam it
Before you were, I am, Goddamnit
Yes, I can take his name in vain
And work on Sabbath or abstain
And no my rights don't come from Gawd.
There's no freedom behind a church facade
And speaking of vanity
Let's end this Christ-insanity
Of leaders claiming to speak for god.
Can't we all agree that's a sign of illness or fraud?
Even Jesus said beware
Of hypo-christians who love to pray in the public square.
They say "gawd bless America" all the time.
Did she sneeze? Oh please, for want of rhyme.
And yet the thing I find most sublime
Is that I'm free to think and speak my mind
Without things theological intertwined.
We still live in a land that's supposed to be free,
So even if we can't always agree
We should still reject fundamentalist hegemony.
Demand your release
From the thought police
And seek your "truths" in quiet peace.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's another one called "Givin' 'Em Hell".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Givin' 'em Hell"
I've read the morbid tales of hell.
That horrendous, sordid jail.
That scorched torture chamber, of sadistic blackmail.
Of infinite cruelty for finite crimes,
To even conceive it most surely begrimes
The person proposing this state of affairs.
No offense could merit those endless nightmares.
Even Saddam Hussein would turn up his nose
At the types of torments you Christians propose.
The idea that it could be even remotely fair
For a single misdeed to send you there
Is depravity beyond compare.
How could your God of "LOVE" not care?
He'd burn Hitler along with unbaptized kids?
Is there nothing his moral code forbids?
If he made hell then he should burn in it.
It's the worst crime of all time
Ain't no polite way to spin it.
The only difference between God and the Devil
Seems to Be the relative power level.
Arrogant, petty and forever ready
To include humans in their bitter feud.
Like parent who without remorse
Manipulate their children in a messy divorce.
I don't want to hear your crap any more.
So step outside and settle the score.
And don't let your ***** get hit by the door.
I'm disgusted with the whole damn thing.
All the chaos that religions bring.
So much so that I no longer care.
For I'm not a child that you can scare,
With your fire and brimstone, don't even dare.
Your biblical bogeymen don't have a prayer.
And if there's an afterlife, the way I will prepare
Is doing the best that I'm aware.
Frankly, I think it's all in your head.
How could there be life when you're already dead?
I haven't got it all figured out,
But I find I have more faith in doubt,
Than I ever derived by being devout.
I see Gawd as a product that was thought up
By lying scribes and priests to bribe and fleece
The wooly tribes of gullible sheep who cringe and weep,
And seek salvation on the cheap.
You think Pastor Toddlerboff even gives a bleep?
The Church's concern is to earn a return
On the ill-gotten gains that it still retains.
So, no, I don't think they have a clue
What Jesus would or would not do.
I don't believe I came into this world in sin
Or inherited the guilt of other men.
I don't feel a need to be forgiven
When my only mortal sin is livin'.
The only way that I know how
And if that gores a sacred cow
I hope you're hungry for some hamburgers now.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are a few more:
This is one about so-called "intelligent design". It's called "Blindly
Designed".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blindly Designed
If we were designed,
Our watchmaker was blind
And he doesn't strike me as particularly kind.
Sometimes I suspect He was out of his mind.
Did He really think
That we should eat and drink
Through the same hardware
That we use for air?
Why not just use separate pipes?
Surely that would reduce our gripes.
Of course it would be slightly more complex
But isn't that what an ID creationist expects?
And it really would be quite minor
For a lofty intelligent designer.
And as a bonus, I have a hunch
That in a time crunch
We could start saying Grace
Whilst swallowing lunch.
Of course there is a darker side as well
All those diseases He designed aren't so super swell
And I suspect they're none to popular with his clientele
In the end, I'm afraid we must invariably conclude
That our intelligent designer has a rotten attitude
Perhaps His own design could use refinement
His moral compass seems to need some realignment
So let's send Him back wherever He was made
And see if we can get the next upgrade
This one has a God-complex, it seems
Forever taking things to their extremes.
P.S. we'd also like some modern dialects
The King James Version has a tendency to perplex.
Then again, perhaps a design
That would be more benign
Would be one we let Nature define
Without the massive ego of a God
That had no need for humans to applaud
It would go relatively slow, I know
But given time, it still will grow
And form us free of charge
Yes, radically free and livin' large
Immersed in an amazingly diverse
Sprawling, enthralling material universe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's a slightly more detailed one about "intelligent design"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ID Idiocy
Intelligent Design Theory is none of those labels.
ID idiocy is a modern day fable
That seeks to enable pseudo-science
Through an unholy alliance
With political correctness and blind biblical compliance.
Instead of saying storks bring babies, Intelligent Stork Theory says the
source
(of course) Is a super-smart but invisible, bird-like force
That guides infants along an aerial course
It flies unseen to the ob-gyn
And drops the kid into the hands of the delivering physician.
We could make up excuses all day long
To explain why this "alternative" theory is never wrong.
But why would people supply
A steady stream of obvious lies
And try to deny the objective facts
Unless they thought their religion was under scientific attack?
ID is the fallacy that really complex things must be engineered.
That result seems more than a little weird.
For, with all due respect, your god-shaped "designer" is super complex
Do you think He just magically appeared?
Hey, maybe He evolved=3F
I guess that would get the problem solved.
Let's look at the implications of design.
Take the fused vertebrae at the base of our spine.
Why make it from multiple bones
When you could have used a single alone?
And are you saying that diseases were intelligently made
To kill and invade, disperse and pervade
Is bio-warfare your stock in trade?
Ah yes, what a gift, if you get my drift.
I hope the rest of creation won't get miffed
Do you think a complex river was designed to wobble and wind?
An aqueduct is simpler, yet more refined.
It has smoother surfaces and is better aligned.
Yet the complex system is the one that one finds
All over nature in myriad kinds.
I have a designer, it's called my genes
And no, they're not made on Calvin Klein's sewing machines
Life's no accident, I agree.
It's no accident that my genes made me.
They got their direction from natural selection.
Through ample mutations and larger aberrations
Species diverge and new features emerge.
It's no accident that chemicals combine.
But physics is the guide, not the divine.
The accident is not life, but what exactly arose.
For my life could have been quite different, I suppose.
What if my grandparents never got together.
It's like trying to predict the weather,
Fifty years in advance.
Of course there will be elements of chance.
But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that evolution is but a role of
the dice,
For everything in nature has its price.
It's no accident what lives and what expires.
The best adaptation flourish as nature requires.
God may not play dice, but the dice can play god.
To puncture this illusion may seem impious and odd.
But a few generations of bacterial breeding
Can conquer a medicine that before was succeeding.
You've probably heard of the butterfly effect.
A tiny nudge can completely redirect
And change or rearrange, leading events astray.
In Chaos Theory order arises spontaneously.
There are no accidents, so some claim
But no two things in life are precisely the same.
Variation is the name of the game.
If there is a God there should be no accidents
So who are you really trying to convince?
(Yourself perhaps)
I love how creationists constantly spout.
About how they've got it all figured out.
What an amazing lack of humility
And overestimate of their own ability.
To tell me you know that every Atom (and Eve)
In the intricate weave
Of this vast universe was purposely designed
Is megalomania, classically defined.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This one's fairly self explanatory and is called "Santa Claus Again"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Santa Claus Again
Could you believe in Santa Claus again?
Like you did before you were ten.
Or the Easter Bunny
Or the Tooth Fairy
And what about the Virgin Mary
Hey! Wait a minute! That isn't fair!
Or so a pious clique of grown up kids declare
The point is there's no way to just flip a switch
And believe again without a hitch
I don't think I ever could
Not that I'd want to
Or think that I should
Percy Shelley pointed out
That you can't just will away your doubt
You're either persuaded or you're not
Your true convictions can't be bought
And surely, as William James proclaims
You can't fool God about your views
Or use Pascal's Wager as a ruse
Believing only because it let
You get to heaven on a bet
No, one surely needs something more
Like a booming voice from heaven, as in the days of yore
Or miracles and magic galore
Or ten million dollars in my Swiss bank account
Surely such a large amount
Would be too much evidence to discount
Seriously though, with all due respect
What would it take to get you to reject
Your own favorite creeds
Would even a trip in a time machine succeed?
So if I may suggest
It really may be best
To let people believe at their behest
And perhaps most importantly
Don't ring my fucking doorbell and preach to me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, this last short poem is a wee bit of what I call "Coz", short
for "Cosmology"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each Piece in Turn
You're a piece of the universe come alive
To walk around, to think, to strive
That's the thing that matters, not your deeds
Or the precise span of time that your life proceeds
Of course most folks refuse to see it that way
They think it must be consumed, like some dinner buffet
And that life only matters if they gain fame or "succeed"
Or cling to the precepts of some made up creed
In vain, I try to tell them it won't matter in the end
All the ways we preen and how furiously we pretend
For whatever the case, one day we will adjourn
And another piece will get its turn.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
15 Jun 2006 08:22:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:20:00 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious poems that I've been writing in
the last month or so for poetry class, as I promised in a previous
thread. Most are just rhyming couplets with a little internal rhyming.
I have some more free verse, but I'll probably post that later. As I
mentioned, I do want to see if some publications would be interested in
reprinting these, so I don't want them entirely in the public domain.
If any of you all have recommendations for where I might try to get some
of them published, I'd be interested to hear it.
(BTW, I've got lots more, some in various stages of construction).
Sorry the post is so long, but I didn't want to post everything
separately.
I thought I'd start out with some shorter, simpler ones. Here's
one is called "Damn that Scam".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Damn that fever-brained scam.
That evil artifice
That mind-control device
Known as Jesus Christ.
God and religion
Is nothing short of mental circumcision.
Pre-frontal lobe incision
Theology's a bogus apology
The defense of nonsense
How do you keep an idiot in suspense
<pause>
Its lies lack the power to convince.
The beasts known as priests
Have their brains soaked in Fraud
A professional class of liars for Gawd
Contortionists who twist their sacred Texts
Obscuring defects
And interpreting out of context
They'll manufacture any excuse
To justify divine abuse
They'll make up any lie, on the fly,
To defend holy writ.
They think it's clever.
I think it's *****.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here is one that's just a short series
of modified Nietzsche quotes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Herr Nietzsche Sprach"
'God is dead and only the ignorant weep'
Bleating like a flock of forlorn sheep.
Standing vigil for two thousand lonely years
In the vain hope their shepherd reappears.
Their simple, trusting nature being thus,
They'd worship the shadow of a corpse without a fuss.
Faith never moved a mountain o'er
Though it's made some where there were none before.
For faith means not wanting to know what's true.
Is the fruit of knowledge such a toxic brew?
A casual cajole with a lunatic's soul
Shows that faith proves nothing on the whole.
Except that convictions are a more dangerous foes of truth than lies
For they prevent competing views to rise.
Mr. Nietzsche had a potent flair
To see through a matter and to lay the truth bare.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a longer one that talks about theocratic republicanism and the
way that their professed political agendas often completely
contradiction the teachings of xianity. It's a somewhat long one (over
500 words with around 100 rhymes in it).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Je$u$ Wants a Tax Cut
Jesus wants a tax cut.
Ma friends, can I hear an Amen!
And if we raise the minimum wage,
It would crucify Him all over again.
Yes, Jesus wants a tax cut
For every millionaire
Of the poor and the lame
'Tis a terrible shame
Now let's bow our heads, and pretend to care.
Here I thought that He taught
A camel could more easily ply
The passage through a needle's eye
Than for the rich to beg or buy
A little piece of that heavenly pie.
(Then again, perhaps they can wheedle
Tiny camels or giant needles)
Now don't get me wrong.
As I've followed along
Your salvation sounds reasonably priced.
But from my perspective,
While it seems effective,
The God that you worship is Mammon, not Christ.
Onward Xian Soldiers, fighting for the God of high-priced oil
Make no mistake as they ride terror's wake.
Their virtue is theft over honest toil.
And if Gentle Jebus demands
That you die in the sand
Your cheerful compliance to his command,
Earns you a ticket to the Promised Land.
Your sacraments, are dollars and cents
See how "In God We Trust" encrusts all our money, by accident.
And, which God would that Be,
Enshrined on the altar of our Currency?
To whom shall we render
All that's legal and tender?
How much will real estate be worth,
When the meek finally do inherit the Earth?
And when did the bible decree,
"Buy tawdry wares in remembrance of Me"?
Is red and green ink the wine we must drink
When we imbibe the blood of this Lord?
Does it wash clean our debts
Or is it just a safe bet
That seems easy enough to afford.
Preachers may play the game
of trying to claim
I must hate Jesus
Because I label theo-crazy egregious
I'd just rather not let you breed confusion
Between the bible and the constitution
Despite facile semantic tricks,
It's clear that church and state don't mix
The First Amendment says that religion's our own decision,
While the First Commandment locks our choice in mental prison
We're free to preach the bible or slam it
Before you were, I am, Goddamnit
Yes, I can take his name in vain
And work on Sabbath or abstain
And no my rights don't come from Gawd.
There's no freedom behind a church facade
And speaking of vanity
Let's end this Christ-insanity
Of leaders claiming to speak for god.
Can't we all agree that's a sign of illness or fraud?
Even Jesus said beware
Of hypo-christians who love to pray in the public square.
They say "gawd bless America" all the time.
Did she sneeze? Oh please, for want of rhyme.
And yet the thing I find most sublime
Is that I'm free to think and speak my mind
Without things theological intertwined.
We still live in a land that's supposed to be free,
So even if we can't always agree
We should still reject fundamentalist hegemony.
Demand your release
From the thought police
And seek your "truths" in quiet peace.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's another one called "Givin' 'Em Hell".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Givin' 'em Hell"
I've read the morbid tales of hell.
That horrendous, sordid jail.
That scorched torture chamber, of sadistic blackmail.
Of infinite cruelty for finite crimes,
To even conceive it most surely begrimes
The person proposing this state of affairs.
No offense could merit those endless nightmares.
Even Saddam Hussein would turn up his nose
At the types of torments you Christians propose.
The idea that it could be even remotely fair
For a single misdeed to send you there
Is depravity beyond compare.
How could your God of "LOVE" not care?
He'd burn Hitler along with unbaptized kids?
Is there nothing his moral code forbids?
If he made hell then he should burn in it.
It's the worst crime of all time
Ain't no polite way to spin it.
The only difference between God and the Devil
Seems to Be the relative power level.
Arrogant, petty and forever ready
To include humans in their bitter feud.
Like parent who without remorse
Manipulate their children in a messy divorce.
I don't want to hear your crap any more.
So step outside and settle the score.
And don't let your ***** get hit by the door.
I'm disgusted with the whole damn thing.
All the chaos that religions bring.
So much so that I no longer care.
For I'm not a child that you can scare,
With your fire and brimstone, don't even dare.
Your biblical bogeymen don't have a prayer.
And if there's an afterlife, the way I will prepare
Is doing the best that I'm aware.
Frankly, I think it's all in your head.
How could there be life when you're already dead?
I haven't got it all figured out,
But I find I have more faith in doubt,
Than I ever derived by being devout.
I see Gawd as a product that was thought up
By lying scribes and priests to bribe and fleece
The wooly tribes of gullible sheep who cringe and weep,
And seek salvation on the cheap.
You think Pastor Toddlerboff even gives a bleep?
The Church's concern is to earn a return
On the ill-gotten gains that it still retains.
So, no, I don't think they have a clue
What Jesus would or would not do.
I don't believe I came into this world in sin
Or inherited the guilt of other men.
I don't feel a need to be forgiven
When my only mortal sin is livin'.
The only way that I know how
And if that gores a sacred cow
I hope you're hungry for some hamburgers now.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are a few more:
This is one about so-called "intelligent design". It's called "Blindly
Designed".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blindly Designed
If we were designed,
Our watchmaker was blind
And he doesn't strike me as particularly kind.
Sometimes I suspect He was out of his mind.
Did He really think
That we should eat and drink
Through the same hardware
That we use for air?
Why not just use separate pipes?
Surely that would reduce our gripes.
Of course it would be slightly more complex
But isn't that what an ID creationist expects?
And it really would be quite minor
For a lofty intelligent designer.
And as a bonus, I have a hunch
That in a time crunch
We could start saying Grace
Whilst swallowing lunch.
Of course there is a darker side as well
All those diseases He designed aren't so super swell
And I suspect they're none to popular with his clientele
In the end, I'm afraid we must invariably conclude
That our intelligent designer has a rotten attitude
Perhaps His own design could use refinement
His moral compass seems to need some realignment
So let's send Him back wherever He was made
And see if we can get the next upgrade
This one has a God-complex, it seems
Forever taking things to their extremes.
P.S. we'd also like some modern dialects
The King James Version has a tendency to perplex.
Then again, perhaps a design
That would be more benign
Would be one we let Nature define
Without the massive ego of a God
That had no need for humans to applaud
It would go relatively slow, I know
But given time, it still will grow
And form us free of charge
Yes, radically free and livin' large
Immersed in an amazingly diverse
Sprawling, enthralling material universe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's a slightly more detailed one about "intelligent design"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ID Idiocy
Intelligent Design Theory is none of those labels.
ID idiocy is a modern day fable
That seeks to enable pseudo-science
Through an unholy alliance
With political correctness and blind biblical compliance.
Instead of saying storks bring babies, Intelligent Stork Theory says the
source
(of course) Is a super-smart but invisible, bird-like force
That guides infants along an aerial course
It flies unseen to the ob-gyn
And drops the kid into the hands of the delivering physician.
We could make up excuses all day long
To explain why this "alternative" theory is never wrong.
But why would people supply
A steady stream of obvious lies
And try to deny the objective facts
Unless they thought their religion was under scientific attack?
ID is the fallacy that really complex things must be engineered.
That result seems more than a little weird.
For, with all due respect, your god-shaped "designer" is super complex
Do you think He just magically appeared?
Hey, maybe He evolved=3F
I guess that would get the problem solved.
Let's look at the implications of design.
Take the fused vertebrae at the base of our spine.
Why make it from multiple bones
When you could have used a single alone?
And are you saying that diseases were intelligently made
To kill and invade, disperse and pervade
Is bio-warfare your stock in trade?
Ah yes, what a gift, if you get my drift.
I hope the rest of creation won't get miffed
Do you think a complex river was designed to wobble and wind?
An aqueduct is simpler, yet more refined.
It has smoother surfaces and is better aligned.
Yet the complex system is the one that one finds
All over nature in myriad kinds.
I have a designer, it's called my genes
And no, they're not made on Calvin Klein's sewing machines
Life's no accident, I agree.
It's no accident that my genes made me.
They got their direction from natural selection.
Through ample mutations and larger aberrations
Species diverge and new features emerge.
It's no accident that chemicals combine.
But physics is the guide, not the divine.
The accident is not life, but what exactly arose.
For my life could have been quite different, I suppose.
What if my grandparents never got together.
It's like trying to predict the weather,
Fifty years in advance.
Of course there will be elements of chance.
But that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that evolution is but a role of
the dice,
For everything in nature has its price.
It's no accident what lives and what expires.
The best adaptation flourish as nature requires.
God may not play dice, but the dice can play god.
To puncture this illusion may seem impious and odd.
But a few generations of bacterial breeding
Can conquer a medicine that before was succeeding.
You've probably heard of the butterfly effect.
A tiny nudge can completely redirect
And change or rearrange, leading events astray.
In Chaos Theory order arises spontaneously.
There are no accidents, so some claim
But no two things in life are precisely the same.
Variation is the name of the game.
If there is a God there should be no accidents
So who are you really trying to convince?
(Yourself perhaps)
I love how creationists constantly spout.
About how they've got it all figured out.
What an amazing lack of humility
And overestimate of their own ability.
To tell me you know that every Atom (and Eve)
In the intricate weave
Of this vast universe was purposely designed
Is megalomania, classically defined.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This one's fairly self explanatory and is called "Santa Claus Again"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Santa Claus Again
Could you believe in Santa Claus again?
Like you did before you were ten.
Or the Easter Bunny
Or the Tooth Fairy
And what about the Virgin Mary
Hey! Wait a minute! That isn't fair!
Or so a pious clique of grown up kids declare
The point is there's no way to just flip a switch
And believe again without a hitch
I don't think I ever could
Not that I'd want to
Or think that I should
Percy Shelley pointed out
That you can't just will away your doubt
You're either persuaded or you're not
Your true convictions can't be bought
And surely, as William James proclaims
You can't fool God about your views
Or use Pascal's Wager as a ruse
Believing only because it let
You get to heaven on a bet
No, one surely needs something more
Like a booming voice from heaven, as in the days of yore
Or miracles and magic galore
Or ten million dollars in my Swiss bank account
Surely such a large amount
Would be too much evidence to discount
Seriously though, with all due respect
What would it take to get you to reject
Your own favorite creeds
Would even a trip in a time machine succeed?
So if I may suggest
It really may be best
To let people believe at their behest
And perhaps most importantly
Don't ring my fucking doorbell and preach to me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finally, this last short poem is a wee bit of what I call "Coz", short
for "Cosmology"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each Piece in Turn
You're a piece of the universe come alive
To walk around, to think, to strive
That's the thing that matters, not your deeds
Or the precise span of time that your life proceeds
Of course most folks refuse to see it that way
They think it must be consumed, like some dinner buffet
And that life only matters if they gain fame or "succeed"
Or cling to the precepts of some made up creed
In vain, I try to tell them it won't matter in the end
All the ways we preen and how furiously we pretend
For whatever the case, one day we will adjourn
And another piece will get its turn.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey thanks man. :)
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that
whosever would believe in him would believe just about anything.
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
16 Jun 2006 07:30:22 AM |
|
|
Gospel Bretts wrote:
WTFWJD
Turn the other cheek, and then dish out more elliptical *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
16 Jun 2006 08:13:34 AM |
|
|
In article <dt1492hl39uv2h30vheuoprgd3s67qar36@4ax.com>,
Hallelujah@InJesusName.amen says...
Hey thanks man. :)
No probs. I got plenty more too. What I'd eventually like to do would
be to put help coordinate an atheist poetry event that I'm tentatively
titling a "God Slam".
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that
whosever would believe in him would believe just about anything.
Or "Only God in his infinite wisdom could have designed the giraffe so
that at birth it drops violently, 6 ft. onto it's head."
And "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when
it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
18 Jun 2006 12:51:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 19:20:00 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious poems that I've been writing in
the last month or so for poetry class, as I promised in a previous
thread. Most are just rhyming couplets with a little internal rhyming.
I have some more free verse, but I'll probably post that later. As I
mentioned, I do want to see if some publications would be interested in
reprinting these, so I don't want them entirely in the public domain.
If any of you all have recommendations for where I might try to get some
of them published, I'd be interested to hear it.
(BTW, I've got lots more, some in various stages of construction).
Sorry the post is so long, but I didn't want to post everything
separately.
Writer's Digest publishes an annual "Poet's Market," which is kind of
a misnomer because few "markets" pay for poetry and the few who do,
pay no more than a token amount. I have had several poems published
in literary magazines, but lately have just preferred to put them on a
web site - more people read the web than literacy magazines.
You didn't ask for comments about the poems, so forgive me if I make a
couple.
It's difficult to "sell" rhymed poetry, because, like yours, the
rhymes are too often trite - if you do want to write rhymed poetry,
unless writing humorous verse, avoid too many perfect rhymes and
insert more visual and near rhymes to soften the jarring affect of
hard rhyme.
Your poems are didactic which makes them hard to place as well - show,
don't tell.
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
18 Jun 2006 09:12:32 AM |
|
|
In article <jfp992hbm7j0uuiaiq3hp0p236b5f4k756@4ax.com>,
composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net says...
You didn't ask for comments about the poems, so forgive me if I make a
couple.
It's difficult to "sell" rhymed poetry, because, like yours, the
rhymes are too often trite - if you do want to write rhymed poetry,
unless writing humorous verse,
I'm aware that rhymed poetry isn't often the norm in many poetry
publications. However, rhyming is still very much the norm in for song
writing. I have many poems, including some of the ones posted, that are
supposed to be parts of slammed, rapped, etc. Just seeing the text
doesn't often given one a feel for how it shoudl be said.
avoid too many perfect rhymes
I totally agree with that. My inclination is to have a lot less rhyming.
I mainly blame the instructor of this particular class, who gets all
wigged out at near rhymes. I'm not sure what's up with that.
and
insert more visual and near rhymes to soften the jarring affect of
hard rhyme.
It can have that effect. But if you think of them as songs or try to rap
or slam some of the poems, as they were intended, it's really not that
jarring.
Your poems are didactic which makes them hard to place as well - show,
don't tell.
Agreed, except that, in a few of these poems I have a very particular
subject/message which is a bit didactic and it wouldn't it wouldn't
always make sense to beat around the bush with it. As it is, I think I
rely more on metaphor and description than direct telling, but, then
again, I'm not describing the beauty of a cloud, or how much I love
raindrops in the morning, like traditional, touchy/feely or hallmark
poems. But I think any writer should always strive harder to set the
scene for the reader, rather than just producing elaborate laundry lists
of instructions. I have many modern poems as models, so I know how I
could modify the style to look more like that. But often times I like to
rhyme and I also like to get something definitive said by the end of the
poem. Anyway, thanks for the pointers. It always helps.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "SongBookz" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
18 Jun 2006 10:17:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 08:12:32 -0600, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <jfp992hbm7j0uuiaiq3hp0p236b5f4k756@4ax.com>,
composer7NOSPAM@sbcglobal.net says...
You didn't ask for comments about the poems, so forgive me if I make a
couple.
It's difficult to "sell" rhymed poetry, because, like yours, the
rhymes are too often trite - if you do want to write rhymed poetry,
unless writing humorous verse,
I'm aware that rhymed poetry isn't often the norm in many poetry
publications. However, rhyming is still very much the norm in for song
writing. I have many poems, including some of the ones posted, that are
supposed to be parts of slammed, rapped, etc. Just seeing the text
doesn't often given one a feel for how it shoudl be said.
avoid too many perfect rhymes
I totally agree with that. My inclination is to have a lot less rhyming.
I mainly blame the instructor of this particular class, who gets all
wigged out at near rhymes. I'm not sure what's up with that.
and
insert more visual and near rhymes to soften the jarring affect of
hard rhyme.
It can have that effect. But if you think of them as songs or try to rap
or slam some of the poems, as they were intended, it's really not that
jarring.
Your poems are didactic which makes them hard to place as well - show,
don't tell.
Agreed, except that, in a few of these poems I have a very particular
subject/message which is a bit didactic and it wouldn't it wouldn't
always make sense to beat around the bush with it. As it is, I think I
rely more on metaphor and description than direct telling, but, then
again, I'm not describing the beauty of a cloud, or how much I love
raindrops in the morning, like traditional, touchy/feely or hallmark
poems. But I think any writer should always strive harder to set the
scene for the reader, rather than just producing elaborate laundry lists
of instructions. I have many modern poems as models, so I know how I
could modify the style to look more like that. But often times I like to
rhyme and I also like to get something definitive said by the end of the
poem. Anyway, thanks for the pointers. It always helps.
OK.
I was under the wrong impression, you mentioned publication, if you're
going to do poetry slams and set them to music, that's a different
thing altogether - and they are your work after all.
Either way, poetry is hard to get published any way, try going to some
poetry slams, poetry readings, or set to music and perform them and
see what the interest is. If there is sufficient interest, you'll
likely have to self-publish (common with poetry) and sell after your
readings and so forth.
A comment: modern poetry is predominately about feelings, moderns
expect prose to be used to inform - so you will be bucking the
expectations of your audience, which is your right - they are your
poems after all, but will make the road to acceptance more difficult -
perhaps, in time, you will change audience expectations, but it will
be an uphill battle.
Best of luck, (and I can't resist a bit of rhyme myself on occasion)
Terrell D Lewis
http://www.songbookz.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
16 Jun 2006 08:25:13 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
What you've posted is hostile, condescending, bile-spewing, ANTI-religious
poetry. Once agian you've proven that atheism has little to do with the
mythical "Lack Of Belief," but instead is virulent hatred of and contempt
for religion, along with the absolute conviction that there is no God, and
that religion is the worst evil there is. And you wonder why people think
your poetry is offensive. I suspect you will remain clueless for the rest of
your sad life.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
16 Jun 2006 11:54:37 PM |
|
|
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
What you've posted is hostile,
You better save some of that indignation, you fucking twat. The poems I
posted were quite tame compared to many I've written. Now you made me
have to post them too. You're just lucky that I'm busy for a while, or
I'd do it right now. But they will be posted, thanks to your pussified
whining.
condescending, bile-spewing, ANTI-religious
Those are all complements as far as I can see, especially coming from a
stupid little ***** like yourself.
poetry. Once agian you've proven that atheism has little to do with the
mythical "Lack Of Belief,"
It's not an either/or proposition, your fallacy of that type to one side.
It can be both a lack of belief in the being in question, based upon
insufficient evidence, and a belief that such a being is manifestly
unreasonable. Furthermore, one could be on the fence about whether there
is a god or not, but stil recognize the fact that xianity is a pile of
*****. So one can still be an atheist with respect to Xianity, or
mainstream religions, in general.
but instead is virulent hatred of and contempt
for religion,
As opposed to your virulent hatred and contempt for the non-religious?
along with the absolute conviction that there is no God,
It's a recognition that there is no good reason to believe in a god and
many good reasons to think there isn't one. I know you can't fathom the
idea that one would operate based upon argument, rather than mere
assertion and belief, as with your blind religious faith.
and
that religion is the worst evil there is. And you wonder why people think
your poetry is offensive. I suspect you will remain clueless for the rest of
your sad life.
I certainly have more of a clue than you, fool. You have yet to offer a
single argument to justify your own position. How is it that you
magically managed to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
17 Jun 2006 09:47:15 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
What you've posted is hostile,
You better save some of that indignation, you fucking twat. The poems I
posted were quite tame compared to many I've written. Now you made me
have to post them too. You're just lucky that I'm busy for a while, or
I'd do it right now. But they will be posted, thanks to your pussified
whining.
condescending, bile-spewing, ANTI-religious
Those are all complements as far as I can see, especially coming from a
stupid little ***** like yourself.
poetry. Once agian you've proven that atheism has little to do with the
mythical "Lack Of Belief,"
It's not an either/or proposition, your fallacy of that type to one side.
It can be both a lack of belief in the being in question, based upon
insufficient evidence, and a belief that such a being is manifestly
unreasonable. Furthermore, one could be on the fence about whether there
is a god or not, but stil recognize the fact that xianity is a pile of
*****. So one can still be an atheist with respect to Xianity, or
mainstream religions, in general.
Sorry, wrong answer. That contradicts everything I always hear. Of course,
there's so much here that contradicts what people endlessly and robotically
repeat about mere lack of belief.
but instead is virulent hatred of and contempt
for religion,
As opposed to your virulent hatred and contempt for the non-religious?
Where have I shown contempt for the non-religious? I only have contempt for
certain aspects of those who are non-religious, such as bile-spewing hatred.
I bear no ill will towards someone who merely lacks belief.
along with the absolute conviction that there is no God,
It's a recognition that there is no good reason to believe in a god and
many good reasons to think there isn't one. I know you can't fathom the
idea that one would operate based upon argument,
Your arguments appear to be based on nothign but hostility, which is not the
same as argument.
rather than mere
assertion and belief, as with your blind religious faith.
Why do you mention my supposed faith? What I do or do not believe has
nothing to do with the issue of your hostility.
and
that religion is the worst evil there is. And you wonder why people think
your poetry is offensive. I suspect you will remain clueless for the rest
of
your sad life.
I certainly have more of a clue than you, fool. You have yet to offer a
single argument to justify your own position.
What *IS* my position, wise one, and when have I shown interest in arguing
for it? Use Google...everything I've posted is right there. BTW, I have no
interest in arguing to justify my position, whatever that is. I've never
tried to argue that my supposed beliefs are the correct ones, nor have I
argued that anyone should believe as I do. Nor do ever intend to do that.
But you're so busy spewing hatred to notice something as obvious as that.
How is it that you
magically managed to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
You know nothing about my beliefs. You're making stuff up. (Or "up stuff"
for those who care about tidy grammar.) Virtually all my posting here has
been to correct misinformation and misperceptions about certain religious
views, not to convince atheists to be believers. And you're not the only one
to miss the obvious.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
17 Jun 2006 11:35:47 PM |
|
|
In article <feudnYVfV6FpiAnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
What you've posted is hostile,
You better save some of that indignation, you fucking twat. The poems I
posted were quite tame compared to many I've written. Now you made me
have to post them too. You're just lucky that I'm busy for a while, or
I'd do it right now. But they will be posted, thanks to your pussified
whining.
condescending, bile-spewing, ANTI-religious
Those are all complements as far as I can see, especially coming from a
stupid little ***** like yourself.
poetry. Once agian you've proven that atheism has little to do with the
mythical "Lack Of Belief,"
It's not an either/or proposition, your fallacy of that type to one side.
It can be both a lack of belief in the being in question, based upon
insufficient evidence, and a belief that such a being is manifestly
unreasonable. Furthermore, one could be on the fence about whether there
is a god or not, but stil recognize the fact that xianity is a pile of
*****. So one can still be an atheist with respect to Xianity, or
mainstream religions, in general.
Sorry,
Yes you are a sorry, stupid *****.
wrong answer.
Nothing that I said was wrong, nor have you pointed out where I was
wrong.
That contradicts everything I always hear.
Then that's a matter of your own painful lack of education, not a problem
on my part.
Of course,
there's so much here that contradicts what people endlessly and robotically
repeat about mere lack of belief.
Strong or "positive" atheism versus "weak" or negative atheism is well
defined and your inability to understand the terms is purely a personal
problem. No contradiction is involved.
Let me give you an example that even a clueless fucktard like yourself
should be able to understand. Suppose that I don't smoke cigars. Some
people might term me an "a-cigar-ist". I might simply lack the desire to
spoke cigars. (Negative a-cigar-ism) On the other hand, I might be
actively opposed to cigars for health, economic and political reason.
(positive a-cigar-ism) In the latter case, I might vigorously campaign
against cigar smoking and certainly I wouldn't smoke any myself. Now
even a dipshit like yourself should be able to see that it is possible
to both lack the desire to smoke and to actively campaign against
smoking. There is no contraction there at all. The same applies to
strong and weak atheism. I can lack god belief and be vehemently opposed
to various church formulations of god belief.
What *IS* my position, wise one,
Who gives a ***** what your position is, *****. You clearly don't
understand much about atheism which is the only on-topic point you should
be talking about. So either say something relevant or stop wasting
everyone else's time. While you're at it, tinkerbell, stop all thw
whining about "hostility" too. That's so tired and played out. Grow a
pair and deal with it.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
18 Jun 2006 08:35:08 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <feudnYVfV6FpiAnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
[snip]
I'm restoring what you snipped from your previous reply:
You have yet to offer a single argument to justify
your own position. How is it that you magically managed
to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
What *IS* my position, wise one,
Who gives a ***** what your position is, *****.
Uh, I guess that would be you, since you mentioned it. I think your knee is
jerking so fast and forcefully you've given yourself a concussion.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
20 Jun 2006 12:34:12 PM |
|
|
Rick wrote:
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <feudnYVfV6FpiAnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
[snip]
I'm restoring what you snipped from your previous reply:
You have yet to offer a single argument to justify
your own position. How is it that you magically managed
to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
What *IS* my position, wise one,
Who gives a ***** what your position is, *****.
Uh, I guess that would be you, since you mentioned it.
Except that you're the one who made a big deal out of it and, even
after I ignored it and snipped it, you had to try to resurrect the
subject. I wasn't even going to respond at all, but at least a pause
of two days should show you that I truly don't give a ***** about the
idiocy of your position. I've already showed the fallacy of your
attempt to claim that all atheists are required to do nothing but lack
belief. You've failed to refute that in any way, but I don't expect
your "position" to be any less ridiculous the next time.
I think your knee is
jerking so fast and forcefully you've given yourself a concussion.
You must be looking at yourself in a mirror, because you're the one who
tried to pass off your canned answers and got caught. Better luck with
your lies next time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
21 Jun 2006 06:38:57 AM |
|
|
wrote in message
<1150824852.847886.214250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>...
Rick wrote:
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <feudnYVfV6FpiAnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
[snip]
I'm restoring what you snipped from your previous reply:
You have yet to offer a single argument to justify
your own position. How is it that you magically managed
to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
What *IS* my position, wise one,
Who gives a ***** what your position is, *****.
Uh, I guess that would be you, since you mentioned it.
Except that you're the one who made a big deal out of it and,
Liar! I never even said one single thing about it at all. *YOU* were the one
who brought it up. I am constantly amazed at how many of you folks here are
such pathological liars. This isn't the first time I've encountered such
absolute crap. Can't you just give up and admit you are wrong! I'm
absolutely sure the answer is a confident "no" since you are an atheist.
even after I ignored it and snipped it, you had to try to resurrect the
subject.
Again, a complete liar. *YOU* resurrected the issue.
I wasn't even going to respond at all, but at least a pause
of two days should show you that I truly don't give a ***** about the
idiocy of your position.
After bringing it up twice and then lying about it, that's obviously another
lie.
I've already showed the fallacy of your
attempt to claim that all atheists are required to do nothing but lack
belief. You've failed to refute that in any way,
I didn't need to. Some of your fellow atheists did it for me.
but I don't expect
your "position" to be any less ridiculous the next time.
I think your knee is
jerking so fast and forcefully you've given yourself a concussion.
You must be looking at yourself in a mirror, because you're the one who
tried to pass off your canned answers and got caught.
Sorry, but you're the one with the canned answers. In fact, you're giving
canned answers to things I never even brought up. You really suck at this.
Better luck with your lies next time.
You're a very, very sick person. You appear to be wanting to take Frederic
L. Rice's place as the Fred Phelps of alt.atheism.
Read the whole damn thread again. *YOU* have been the one to bring up my
alleged position, which is a figment of your imagination.
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
20 Jun 2006 10:03:28 PM |
|
|
In article <9q-dnUQOX5hPsgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler247@yahoo.com wrote in message
<1150824852.847886.214250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>...
Rick wrote:
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <feudnYVfV6FpiAnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
[snip]
I'm restoring what you snipped from your previous reply:
You have yet to offer a single argument to justify
your own position. How is it that you magically managed
to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
What *IS* my position, wise one,
Who gives a ***** what your position is, *****.
Uh, I guess that would be you, since you mentioned it.
Except that you're the one who made a big deal out of it and,
Liar! I never even said one single thing about it at all.
False. In the dialog above you obsesively ask "What *IS* my position". I
tell you I don't give a ***** and you can't let it drop. Besides, you
already tipped your hand with your moronic comments to the effect that
all atheists were merely supposed to "lack belief", as oppose to also
actively opposing theist beliefs.
*YOU* were the one
who brought it up.
That doesn't mean that you said nothing about it. You took the bait and
made a big deal about it. Anyway, you implicitly brought it up yourself
will all your prejudicial comments about atheists.
I am constantly amazed at how many of you folks
There you go again. Are you really so stupid that you think people can't
tell that you position is different than that of the atheist one when you
constantly refer to people here as "you folks" and talk about what "we"
believe.
here are
such pathological liars.
Well, *you're* here, and you're a pathological liar.
You said, "I never even said one single thing about it at all" and yet
the quoted text shows that you did, both explicitly and implicitly. I
didn't deny that I brought up the issue explicitly. I just said that you
made a big deal out of it and that I didn't give a ***** about your
idiotic position. I still don't. That doesn't mean I won't talk about
it. But it's obviously a waste of time. Why don't you just let it go,
dude?
This isn't the first time I've encountered such
absolute crap.
You mean since you opened your mouth five minutes ago and let crap spew
out of it, I suppose.
Can't you just give up and admit you are wrong!
Just tell me what you think I'm wrong about.
I'm
absolutely sure
That's your problem.
the answer is a confident "no" since you are an atheist.
Again, if you honestly think people can't tell that you position is the
opposite of atheism, based upon that, then you're both stupid and
delusional, as well as theist (but that's redundant).
even after I ignored it and snipped it, you had to try to resurrect the
subject.
Again, a complete liar. *YOU* resurrected the issue.
Not a lie. I responded to your resurrection attempt. It was quite lame,
just like your moronic messiah.
I wasn't even going to respond at all, but at least a pause
of two days should show you that I truly don't give a ***** about the
idiocy of your position.
After bringing it up twice and then lying about it, that's obviously another
lie.
That doesn't mean I give a ***** about it. I'm responding to your
attitude and your laughably imprecise language. It's entertaining, after
a fashion. You aren't much for textual analysis, are you?
I've already showed the fallacy of your
attempt to claim that all atheists are required to do nothing but lack
belief. You've failed to refute that in any way,
I didn't need to. Some of your fellow atheists did it for me.
Present that evidence then. Oh wait, you can't because you're lying. If
you had the evidence, then you would have quoted it already.
Anyway, since you claim to have refuted it, it should be easy to restate
your logic right here.
If someone is actively opposed to drinking alcohol does that preclude
them from lacking the desire to drink alcohol as well? (BTW, since
you're almost certainly too stupid to figure it out, "alcohol" is a
metaphor for theism )
but I don't expect
your "position" to be any less ridiculous the next time.
I think your knee is
jerking so fast and forcefully you've given yourself a concussion.
You must be looking at yourself in a mirror, because you're the one who
tried to pass off your canned answers and got caught.
Sorry, but you're the one with the canned answers. In fact, you're giving
canned answers to things I never even brought up. You really suck at this.
Which ones were those, jackass. Hummmmm....you've got nothing, as usual.
What a surprise.
Better luck with your lies next time.
You're a very, very sick person.
At least I don't have an invisible friend, moron.
You appear to be wanting to take Frederic
L. Rice's place as the Fred Phelps of alt.atheism.
Yawn. Fred Rice was at least interesting. If you honestly don't think
that Phelps is more psychotic than the tame stuff that Rice posted, you
obviously don't have the capacity for rational analysis or objectivity.
Read the whole damn thread again.
BTDT. No you need to read for *comprehension*, since you don't get it.
*YOU* have been the one to bring up my
alleged position,
Where did I deny that. I said you made a big deal of it. I also rightly
pointed out that tipped your hand, despite your pretense that your
"position" was a big, fucking secret. You apparently want people to play
guessing games, and while that can be fun for a while, you get boring
very quickly.
which is a figment of your imagination.
You know, Irony is dead now, because people like you killed it.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
21 Jun 2006 03:16:47 PM |
|
|
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <9q-dnUQOX5hPsgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler247@yahoo.com wrote in message
<1150824852.847886.214250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>...
Rick wrote:
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <feudnYVfV6FpiAnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
[snip]
I'm restoring what you snipped from your previous reply:
You have yet to offer a single argument to justify
your own position. How is it that you magically managed
to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
What *IS* my position, wise one,
Who gives a ***** what your position is, *****.
Uh, I guess that would be you, since you mentioned it.
Except that you're the one who made a big deal out of it and,
Liar! I never even said one single thing about it at all.
False.
I guess you have a reading comprehension problem. I asked YOU after YOU
brought it up. I never once initiated a mention of my position, something
you keep lying about.
In the dialog above you obsesively ask "What *IS* my position".
Obsessively? I just responded to *YOUR* mentions of my position. If there
was any obsession, it was YOURS.
I tell you I don't give a *****
Oh, but you did, several times.
and you can't let it drop.
You are the one who dug yourself into a deep hole. And you keep diggin with
your denials.
Besides, you
already tipped your hand with your moronic comments to the effect that
all atheists were merely supposed to "lack belief", as oppose to also
actively opposing theist beliefs.
They're not moronic comments, but merely a repetition of what atheists here
say over and over again.
*YOU* were the one
who brought it up.
That doesn't mean that you said nothing about it. You took the bait
Good...you admit you *GAVE* the bait. That was my point.
and made a big deal about it.
I pointed out that it was YOU who made a couple mentions of it without me
bringing it up first.
Anyway, you implicitly brought it up yourself
will all your prejudicial comments about atheists.
I am constantly amazed at how many of you folks
There you go again. Are you really so stupid that you think people can't
tell that you position is different than that of the atheist one when you
constantly refer to people here as "you folks" and talk about what "we"
believe.
here are
such pathological liars.
Well, *you're* here, and you're a pathological liar.
I think Frederic L. Rice is one of the few posters here who is in more
denial than you.
You said, "I never even said one single thing about it at all"
I've already explained that. I have not mentioned one thing about what my
position is. I've merely commented on your obsession about my alleged
position, about which I've actually said nothing. You're digging a hole so
fast you'll need a new shovel soon.
and yet
the quoted text shows that you did, both explicitly and implicitly. I
didn't deny that I brought up the issue explicitly.
You still lied about what I said.
I just said that you
made a big deal out of it and that I didn't give a ***** about your
idiotic position. I still don't.
But you're still trying to put the blame on me when it was YOU who
originally brought it up. You see, the problem is that you can't admit that
it was a mistake to attack me for my alleged position without me even saying
anything.
That doesn't mean I won't talk about
it. But it's obviously a waste of time. Why don't you just let it go,
dude?
You're the one who needs to let it go. You've missed several opportunities
to keep your mouth shut.
This isn't the first time I've encountered such
absolute crap.
You mean since you opened your mouth five minutes ago and let crap spew
out of it, I suppose.
Can't you just give up and admit you are wrong!
Just tell me what you think I'm wrong about.
At this point I can't think of much you're right about.
I'm
absolutely sure
That's your problem.
the answer is a confident "no" since you are an atheist.
Again, if you honestly think people can't tell that you position is the
opposite of atheism,
I see you're trapped in black and white thinking. Besides, your original
gripe was "You have yet to offer a single argument to justify your own
position", something I've never shown an interest in doing. That's the whole
point. You seem to believe I'm interested in doing that, at which point
you'll offer your brilliant refutation, proving your superior intellect. But
I'm not going to give you that satisfaction.
based upon that, then you're both stupid and
delusional, as well as theist (but that's redundant).
even after I ignored it and snipped it, you had to try to resurrect the
subject.
Again, a complete liar. *YOU* resurrected the issue.
Not a lie. I responded to your resurrection attempt. It was quite lame,
just like your moronic messiah.
No matter how much reductio ad absurdium you apply, YOU inititated
discussion of my alleged but unstated position.
I wasn't even going to respond at all, but at least a pause
of two days should show you that I truly don't give a ***** about the
idiocy of your position.
After bringing it up twice and then lying about it, that's obviously
another
lie.
That doesn't mean I give a ***** about it. I'm responding to your
attitude and your laughably imprecise language.
You're still just a plain liar.
It's entertaining, after
a fashion. You aren't much for textual analysis, are you?
Irony is comletely wasted on you.
I've already showed the fallacy of your
attempt to claim that all atheists are required to do nothing but lack
belief. You've failed to refute that in any way,
I didn't need to. Some of your fellow atheists did it for me.
Present that evidence then. Oh wait, you can't because you're lying. If
you had the evidence, then you would have quoted it already.
Evidence posted below...I don't have the time to dig up the thousands of
references to mere "lack of belief" I've read here over the last several
years. If you haven't seen it repeatedly, well, I think you're just a liar.
Anyway, since you claim to have refuted it, it should be easy to restate
your logic right here.
If someone is actively opposed to drinking alcohol does that preclude
them from lacking the desire to drink alcohol as well? (BTW, since
you're almost certainly too stupid to figure it out, "alcohol" is a
metaphor for theism )
but I don't expect
your "position" to be any less ridiculous the next time.
I think your knee is
jerking so fast and forcefully you've given yourself a concussion.
You must be looking at yourself in a mirror, because you're the one who
tried to pass off your canned answers and got caught.
Sorry, but you're the one with the canned answers. In fact, you're giving
canned answers to things I never even brought up. You really suck at
this.
Which ones were those, jackass. Hummmmm....you've got nothing, as usual.
What a surprise.
Better luck with your lies next time.
You're a very, very sick person.
At least I don't have an invisible friend, moron.
You appear to be wanting to take Frederic
L. Rice's place as the Fred Phelps of alt.atheism.
Yawn. Fred Rice was at least interesting. If you honestly don't think
that Phelps is more psychotic than the tame stuff that Rice posted, you
obviously don't have the capacity for rational analysis or objectivity.
Read the whole damn thread again.
BTDT. No you need to read for *comprehension*, since you don't get it.
*YOU* have been the one to bring up my
alleged position,
Where did I deny that.
Oy gefreaking vey.
I said you made a big deal of it. I also rightly
pointed out that tipped your hand, despite your pretense that your
"position" was a big, fucking secret. You apparently want people to play
guessing games, and while that can be fun for a while, you get boring
very quickly.
I have no interest in arguing for my alleged position, what ever that may
be, Never have, and probaly never will. Keep looking for a fight, though. It
seems to keep you entertained.
which is a figment of your imagination.
You know, Irony is dead now, because people like you killed it.
You still suck at this.
*********************************************************
From: John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Are There Any Pro-Life Atheists?
Message-ID: <n4gc929f990l687k0uqvg8sn515kn2udcp@4ax.com>
References: <kvCdnXvHAPtwbwnZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@adelphia.com>
<1150626724.938065.145130@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
<eIidnZRI5_dTYQjZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 06:16:04 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:24:31 -0500, "Rick"
<pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com> wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote in message
<1150626724.938065.145130@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>...
[snip]
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. If you're laboring
under the delusion that it's anything else, you're simply wrong.
That is so hilarious to hear that after reading Quibbler's torturously
tortuous explanation that atheism is not simply the lack of belief in any
Gods. Apparently he's laboring under the same delusion.
Perhaps for Quibbler, atheism *is* more than that. For most of us, it
isn't.
- Rick
*********************************************************
From: "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Are There Any Pro-Life Atheists?
Date: 19 Jun 2006 01:27:32 -0700
Message-ID: <1150705651.975025.320190@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
References: <kvCdnXvHAPtwbwnZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@adelphia.com>
<1150626724.938065.145130@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
<eIidnZRI5_dTYQjZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Rick wrote:
Chris Johnson wrote in message
<1150626724.938065.145130@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>...
[snip]
Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. If you're laboring
under the delusion that it's anything else, you're simply wrong.
That is so hilarious to hear that after reading Quibbler's torturously
tortuous explanation that atheism is not simply the lack of belief in any
Gods. Apparently he's laboring under the same delusion.
Apparently. There's nothing stopping an atheist from holding any other
positions or beliefs, and they may even be direct consequences of
his/her atheism, but they are not a part of atheism.
*********************************************************
- Rick
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Some poems, as promised. (somewhat longish) |
21 Jun 2006 08:54:33 AM |
|
|
In article <vradnfOjYsqtNATZnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <9q-dnUQOX5hPsgTZnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler247@yahoo.com wrote in message
<1150824852.847886.214250@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>...
Rick wrote:
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <feudnYVfV6FpiAnZnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
In article <0uCdnagvDLNkxA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@giganews.com>,
pl1_alpha_geek@juNOSPAM.com says...
quibbler wrote in message ...
Ok, I'm going to post some non-religious
[snip]
I'm restoring what you snipped from your previous reply:
You have yet to offer a single argument to justify
your own position. How is it that you magically managed
to pick the "one true religion"?<snork>
What *IS* my position, wise one,
Who gives a ***** what your position is, *****.
Uh, I guess that would be you, since you mentioned it.
Except that you're the one who made a big deal out of it and,
Liar! I never even said one single thing about it at all.
False.
I guess you have a reading comprehension problem.
You guess incorrectly, you fucking moron.
I asked YOU after YOU
brought it up.
I didn't deny bringing it up, you fucking moron. Of course, I don't
expect you to stop accusing me of that, since you're a fucking moron.
I never once initiated a mention of my position
You indirectly indicated your position and make reference more directly
after I called you on it, you fucking moron.
, something
you keep lying about.
What lie, you fucking moron? What specifically have I lied about? You
did indicate your ignorance of and hostility toward atheism, which
indirectly reveals your position, you fucking moron. Furthermore, after
being challenged on it, you started to obsess about the holy fucking
mystery of what your exact position was. None of what I said is a lie,
you fucking moron.
In the dialog above you obsesively ask "What *IS* my position".
Obsessively?
Yes you being obsessive, among other things, you fucking moron. After I
told you that I didn't care or want to talk about it, you kept
essentially begging me to play 20 questions about what exact species of
theist kook you really are.
I just responded to *YOUR* mentions of my position. If there
was any obsession, it was YOURS.
An obsession where I didn't even respond to your ***** for a couple
straight days. That's how "obsessed" I was with "your position" on
religion.
I tell you I don't give a *****
Oh, but you did, several times.
Talking about it does not necessarily mean that I care, you fucking
moron. Are you saying that people never talk about things they don't
care about? Ever heard a speech by a politician, you fucking moron? I
talk about the bible too, but that doesn't particularly mean that I care
about it. I might care about the fact that so many fundies lie about it,
but that is different than caring about the bible itself.
and you can't let it drop.
You are the one who dug yourself into a deep hole.
There's another "figment of your imagination", you fucking moron. There
is not a "hole" and this post *will* be the *last* time I discuss your
moronic "position" on religion in this thread.
And you keep diggin with
your denials.
What denials? Why don't you actually cite them? Because you can't.
Besides, you
already tipped your hand with your moronic comments to the effect that
all atheists were merely supposed to "lack belief", as oppose to also
actively opposing theist beliefs.
They're not moronic comments,
Your comments are moronic, because you're a moron.
but merely a repetition of what atheists here
say over and over again.
You're ignoring the difference between positive and negative atheism.
You only repeat the views of negative atheists. Lack of belief can be
present in both negative and positive atheism, but positive atheism fills
in details. You moronically conclude that, because positive provides
details, whereas negative atheist doesn't take on that obligation, that
somehow positive atheism isn't "real" atheism. At this point you can cue
up Flew's "No true scotsman".
*YOU* were the one
who brought it up.
That doesn't mean that you said nothing about it. You took the bait
Good...you admit you *GAVE* the bait. That was my point.
Good...then you can stop claiming that I denied it, since you've
acknowledge here that I didn't deny it. Apology accepted for your
inaccurate claim that I was denying it.
and made a big deal about it.
I pointed out that it was YOU who made a couple mentions of it without me
bringing it up first.
You did bring it up indirectly and then addressed the issue more directly
later. That's a matter of record.
Anyway, you implicitly brought it up yourself
will all your prejudicial comments about atheists.
I am constantly amazed at how many of you folks
There you go again. Are you really so stupid that you think people can't
tell that you position is different than that of the atheist one when you
constantly refer to people here as "you folks" and talk about what "we"
believe.
here are
such pathological liars.
Well, *you're* here, and you're a pathological liar.
I think Frederic L. Rice is one of the few posters here who is in more
denial than you.
Again, what have I denied?
You said, "I never even said one single thing about it at all"
I've already explained that. I have not mentioned one thing about what my
position is.
You have indirectly, liar. You have also made reference to your
position, despite the fact that you haven't revealed what it is exactly.
You don't seem to grasp the fact that having a meta discussion about your
position is still saying "one thing" about "what [your] position is".
Nevertheless, your inability to grasp this does not alter the reality
that you have talked about your position.
I've merely commented on your obsession about my alleged
position,
You have an obsession with claiming that I have an obsession, but there
is no evidence that I really care about your religious "position".
about which I've actually said nothing. You're digging a hole so
fast you'll need a new shovel soon.
You keep imagining this "hole" thing, despite the fact that ground has
never been broken. The only thing "broken" around here is the "broken
record" that you keep playing of your discredited accusations.
and yet
the quoted text shows that you did, both explicitly and implicitly. I
didn't deny that I brought up the issue explicitly.
You still lied about what I said.
How?
I just said that you
made a big deal out of it and that I didn't give a ***** about your
idiotic position. I still don't.
But you're still trying to put the blame on me when it was YOU who
originally brought it up.
You mentioned it indirectly, making it pretty clear what your idiotic
'position' consists of. Once I pointed out to you the way that you had
tipped your hand, you started a massive smoke screen campaign.
You see, the problem is that you can't admit that
it was a mistake to attack me for my alleged position without me even saying
anything.
But you already indicated your hostility and ignorance of atheism, so
drop your little charade, you fucking moron.
That doesn't mean I won't talk about
it. But it's obviously a waste of time. Why don't you just let it go,
dude?
You're the one who needs to let it go.
Only because I have maturity, while you lack any. But that's to be
expected, since atheist, in general, tend to be far more intellectually
mature than their opponents.
You've missed several opportunities
to keep your mouth shut.
This isn't the first time I've encountered such
absolute crap.
You mean since you opened your mouth five minutes ago and let crap spew
out of it, I suppose.
Can't you just give up and admit you are wrong!
Just tell me what you think I'm wrong about.
At this point I can't think of much
Your abject mental incompetence is a side issue here.
the answer is a confident "no" since you are an atheist.
Again, if you honestly think people can't tell that you position is the
opposite of atheism,
I see you're trapped in black and white thinking. Besides, your original
gripe was "You have yet to offer a single argument to justify your own
position", something I've never shown an interest in doing. That's the whole
point.
No, you have no point. You tipped your hand whether you wanted to or
not.
You seem to believe I'm interested in doing that,
No, I certainly don't beliee you want to discuss your position. It's
still fair to say that you haven't justified your position, whether you
want to talk about it or not. It's likewise accurate to say that you
didn't run the boston marathon today, even if you come back with "But I
didn't want to run it".
at which point
you'll offer your brilliant refutation, proving your superior intellect. But
I'm not going to give you that satisfaction.
You're obviously such a moron that it would be trivially easy to handle
your objections, much like I have already decimated your argument that
all atheists must exclusively lack belief in god, without ever
articulating such a view. You'll keep dodging the obvious point that is
easily illustrated in countless metaphors. For example, while someone
who has never heard of the "Loch Ness Monster" lacks belief in it,
someone who says, "the Loch Ness Monster is *****" can also lack
belief that there is a Loch Ness Monster. Giving more details doesn't
make contradict lack of belief.
<you repetitious nonsense abridged>
Present that evidence then. Oh wait, you can't because you're lying. If
you had the evidence, then you would have quoted it already.
Evidence posted below...I don't have the time to dig up the thousands of
references to mere "lack of belief" I've read here over the last several
years. If you haven't seen it repeatedly, well, I think you're just a liar.
Anyway, since you claim to have refuted it, it should be easy to restate
your logic right here.
Ooops, you failed to take up that challenge, since you couldn't restate
the logic of your position.
<snipola of more of your crapola>
*YOU* have been the one to bring up my
alleged position,
Where did I deny that.
Oy gefre | | | | | | | | | | |