Faithless
By Chinobus
Fri, 03 May 2013
- 5104 reads
23 comments
These torrential drops of corrupted tears,
break the rugged cross of some loathsome hymn,
spat back from Hell with more than a pound of flesh,
collected within the shaded alcove beside numerous atrocities,
my atheist motif grants what religion had condemned hidden,
beautiful arts of the stars and sea now revealed unto me,
seeking a truth more refined than brazen castor brass,
a river of life which source can never be purged dry,
providing my idle mind an expansive library of curiosity,
held aback by the thriving reflex and contrast of dimensions,
possibilities cannot retain thickened walls when your faithless.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
Remember humans only utilize
Remember humans only utilize a small percentage of their brain's capacity. If you can grasp infinity with an imperfect, finite mind, then it would be a miracle. But, I forgot, you do not believe in the supernatural! The limitations of the human body and mind prove that there are greater cosmic forces. You believe in only what your mind can receive, but an imperfect mind cannot conceptively rationalize an area or being beyond time and space, but through perception and, or faith we understand that we are only a small cog in a complex universe. Believers acknowledge that the tangible is corruptible and finite. What liberation or satisfaction is there in dwelling on inconsequential, naturally-corruptible processes? There is no means to the end if the end is the end. The force creating the natural laws, processes has much more utility.
- Log in to post comments
I used to be an atheist. I
I used to be an atheist.
I realised that the atheistic standpoint was as irrational of that of the true Believer.
Neither is provable one way or the other.
- Log in to post comments
You still avoid the point.
You still avoid the point. You talk about rational human thinking. Humans are not the smartest persons in the universe. A so-called genius uses maybe five percent of his brain capacity. Do you really think that rational human psyches can bridge the gap to the divine through inadequate, insignifigant, and far from perfect knowledge. I dont think so my friend! You criticize the concept, being of God, yet as Descart correctly postulated a very inferior creature, which humans are, presuposes a higher order/being. I believe in God by faith, but as the great medieval philosophers postulated and theorized there is a deep rationale for a higher being. You believe the puny, imperfect human mind holds the key to freedom and salvation. You talk about religious wars, but, I dare say, most soldiers, civilians were killed in secular wars for what was contemporarily deemed rational reasons. Take the lowest of the animals. Could you imagine animals living in the earth/world by themselves without a higher order, humans. For what purpose?Now imagine the huge gap between humans and a higher being/order. Not a stretch is it? Animals without reason, humans with imperfect, finite reason, and a perfect being with great reasoning capacity. Do not put your faith in the inadequate, imperfect human intellect. We use less than 5% of our brain capacities, because we are corrupted, finite beings.
- Log in to post comments
Chinobus you use a very
Chinobus you use a very weak, human intellect to try and figure out things that our finite, inhibited bodies/minds cannot conceive or perceive. When did time begin? Did such a well-delineated, structure start itself. Would not a being greater than and spiritually complex have to create time? A spirit would have to create time. God is a spirit. Somebody bound by the physical limitations of time and space could not create them. And, surely, you do not believe this structural framework popped up out of nothing. Who is more rational here. Use some logic. An inferior being would not create an superior being. A superior being would create an inferior being. And something would not spring out of nothing. That leaves GOD.
- Log in to post comments
How did innanimate matter
How did innanimate matter turn into annimate matter? It defies all of your rational natural laws. It is impossible and has never happened. The first living protozoa could not get the breath of life from a big bang. Blow something up innanimate up and wait a million years; the pieces will never come to life. Going back further, did the first something come from nothing. You cannot see or hear this answer with your rational mind, but only a fool would presuppose it did. A higher being, God created the first speck of matter and you know it. Man did not do it, and it did not evolve out of nothing. An atheist is not a true believer. He is a person that intentionally and irrationally denies an originating deity.
- Log in to post comments
We are not talking about
We are not talking about surviving environmental hazzards. We are talking about innanimate matter magically transforming itself into living, matter. It is against all of the natures laws! Respond!
- Log in to post comments
God exists..... God does not
God exists.....
God does not exist....
Both standpoints are those of the irrational and the delusional.
- Log in to post comments
Chinobus do you think that
Chinobus do you think that the person who created time, space, and natural laws is not above them. These are created things. If you create a sculpture out of nothing but raw materials, are not you far superior to it. Are you bound by the immobility and lack of hearing, seeing by that statue? You are talking, similarly, about a far superior being creating things out of proverbial putty. You can rationalize the unbelievable gap between non-reasoning animals and reasoning humans, but you cant rationalize the gap between a perfect creator and his much inferior creations (annimate and innanimate).
- Log in to post comments
Good dialogue, scratch! A
Good dialogue, scratch! A well-thought out debate clarifies a person's beliefs, convictions. If you have any more comments, I will graciously receive them.
- Log in to post comments
liked the read Chinobus - is
Permalink Submitted by littleditty on
liked the read Chinobus - is that a typo, end line. your/you're - i like the end line -I liked there are no masculine certainty end rhymes in your poem and the idea in the end line for me is interesting re doubt and faith, and towers, and falling towers - faith, walls, possibilities, doubt, faith, walls - good read :)
- Log in to post comments
If time is relevant, then
If time is relevant, then when did it begin and is there an ending. If time has always been, then there could be no rational beginning or end. It began in the beginning.
- Log in to post comments
Nuclear radiation can
Nuclear radiation can re-atomize already living things. It cannot initiate life out of nothing or innanimate matter. The moths were not produced by nuclear radiation. They were altered in composition. Lets go back to the quintessential beginning if you believe, which I certainly do not, that innanimate matter came through a big bang or through nuclear fission, then how did those atomized particles get there. Did the first bit of matter create itself? You cannot and will not answer this question. You know, in the beginning pre-supposes a creator. The human mind can logically rationalize its level/state of being , and that finite mind can rationalize a superior inteligence creating it Descarte). It is stunning, but simple, logic. A mind cannot logically hardwire itself or accidentally come into being. A superior knowledge had to create it. Even if you could logically argue that a body formed from evolving, innanimate matter, which it did not, you can never argue that the metaphysical state of being, awareness came from evolution. You cannot measure/correlate the mind with with physical matter. Tell me how the physical mind squares reality, being with physical matter. Only by conceptualizing a higher intelligence can it justify the awareness of the state of being.
- Log in to post comments