Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
unholy Prayer (Opinions please)
-
08-01-2011 11:44PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Cavehill Red wrote: »What do you perceive is the difference is between being an atheist and having a strong belief there is no god?
What I percieve is'nt the issue
I'm not sure the OP is suffering from a dilemma with his beliefs. He says he strongly believes there is no god.
Yes.. strongly,not firmly.
Nor do I think that every atheist has to go on a journey towards atheism. Certainly, that's the experience of anyone raised within religion, but not all people are.
I agree,but maybe the OP is a person who has been raised with religion.
And maybe...just maybe looking for somewhere to turn?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I like this poem/prayer thingy. While personally I prefer Our Darwin, it's always nice to see atheist style prayers that show the absurdity of actual theistic prayers.
OP, if you lack belief in God you are an atheist. Yeah I know it sucks because if you admit to it everyone automatically pictures you as something your not, but hey, you're not alone here, it's another thing nearly every atheist has in common.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I like this poem/prayer thingy. While personally I prefer Our Darwin, it's always nice to see atheist style prayers that show the absurdity of actual theistic prayers.
OP, if you lack belief in God you are an atheist. Yeah I know it sucks because if you admit to it everyone automatically pictures you as something your not, but hey, you're not alone here, it's another thing nearly every atheist has in common.
Thank you, that is exactly what the poem was intended to show, its supposed to show how absurd as you call it praying can be.
ok I see your point, many people seem to think I struggle with my beliefs I dont, I struggle with the titles such as athiest, agnostic and anti-religious, I suppose anti religious is the best term to describe myself if I had to put a name on it because I dont keep quiet I openly opose organised religion.0 -
The OP has been very clear about this.
The poem is a message to believers about the flaws in having faith in a benevolent god.
He's only not calling himself an atheist because of the label/perception. (Even though he unavoidably is one by definition).
Thank you that is exactly what I was trying to say
0 -
The OP has been very clear about this.
So clear that at least three posters have sought clarification from him.:rolleyes:The poem is a message to believers about the flaws in having faith in a benevolent god.
If it's a message to believers, why post it to non-believers?
0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »So clear that at least three posters have sought clarification from him.:rolleyes:
If it's a message to believers, why post it to non-believers?
I said opinions please, I was wondering if people tought it was an appropriete way to send the message I want to send and its been greatly missunderstood so obviously not.0 -
And yet since that clarification you're the only one still holding the torch.Cavehill Red wrote: »So clear that at least three posters have sought clarification from him.:rolleyes:
This forum is not restricted to non-believers. In one sense, Christianity might have been a better forum to post in, but the OP was really only looking for feedback, rather than furrowed brows.Cavehill Red wrote: »If it's a message to believers, why post it to non-believers?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Cavehill Red wrote: »
If it's a message to believers, why post it to non-believers?
Because this forum is the only forum that would actually allow the poem be published.0 -
As for the poem, I'm singing the childrens nursery rhyme in my head &
often jumping to keep the words in time with the tune
I get
the meaning but from a musical perspective it doesn't always flow it
kind of jumps the odd time & I think you should try to get the words a
bit more fluid so the reader can unconsciously rattle off the tune & read
in sync to appreciate the meaning & not get distracted playing audio-word jigsaw
That's just my opinion & I think it makes sense because you're taking a
nursery rhyme & not just writing a normal poem, if you agree post the
melodic version so we can sync it with a Metallica song
:pac:
As for Cavehill's criticisms:
I was just re-reading Orwell's introduction to Animal Farm there after being
reminded of it in a book thread & a particular passage caught my eye. I
read this thread maybe yesterday & noticed Cavehill's arguments, how
they changed from the religious to the literaryCavehill Red wrote: »From a literary perspective, it's merely a weak pastiche.
But from a psychological perspective, I have to agree that it's an interesting post to place in a forum for atheists.
and this passage of Orwell's stuck out:
But now to come back to this book of mine. The reaction towards it of most English
intellectuals will be quite simple: 'It oughtn't to have been published'. Naturally, those
reviewers who understand the art of denigration will not attack it on political grounds
but on literary ones. They will say that it is a dull, silly book and a disgraceful waste of
paper. This may well be true, but it is obviously not the whole of the story. One does
not say that a book 'ought not to have been published' merely because it is a bad book.
After all, acres of rubbish are printed daily and no one bothers. The English
intelligentsia, or most of them, will object to this book because it traduces their Leader
and (as they see it) does harm to the cause of progress. If it did the opposite they would
have nothing to say against it, even if its literary faults were ten times as glaring as
they are. The success of, for instance, the Left Book Club over a period of four or five
years shows how willing they are to tolerate both scurrility and slipshod writing,
provided that it tells them what they want to hear.
link
If you replace the political context for a religious one you'll see what I
mean. First Cave asks " Why would you pray to a divinity you don't believe
in?" when if you read the poem the writer is clearly asking himself that
very same question as can be clearly read. Then there was the
freethinking atheist jibe which illustrates another personal bias creeping
out of the unconscious so what is it? Where is the pastiche in following the
format of a children's nursery rhyme which is the perfect context to put a
poem about religion - i.e. the very structure of religion is to put humanity
in the position of the author & this poem is clearly a recognition of this
fact only an "unholy" version i.e. an expression from the point of view of a
member of the cracks they perceive. Obviously there is some ulterior
motive going on here because after the freethinking jibe & the pastiche
jibe the rules come into play, "Well, it's the atheism and agnosticism forum,
not the pastiching other beliefs forum.". A moments reading of another
thread would find posts mainly about evolution, about science, about
pseudoscience, clear & utter pastiching/insulting every single religion
(deservedly so in my opinion). Also, this derivative poem insult, I mean
nearly every poem is derivative if you want to go into it honestly but this
trivial fact doesn't stop someone enjoying the poem itself (notice the
similarities to the Orwell passage above). I suppose Joyce's Ulysees is
merely derivative for copying the format of Homer's Odyssey, I mean
this is just not a sound argument at all & must be unconsciously
expressing some sort of frustration. In the Orwell passage he notes that
the people are defending their leader but with Cave it's a defense of
something else. I know it's not religious "People criticise theism (and in
my opinion rightly so) in here all the time" so what is it?
I'm really interested in why people on boards come out with complete
nonsense & it's usually accompanied by virulent attacks on a poster
on here, I'd love to find out why in this case. None of your arguments
against the poem hold any weight so I'd love to get an honest answer
from you why you didn't like it rather than hiding it behind vacuous
justifications. Just to clarify, the jibes indicate unconscious release,
the invocation of the rules is just childish considering there probabily
isn't a post on this forum solely devoted to religion/atheism in vacuo
& the derivative argument is just a joke.
I don't mean to target you :P It's just that you're making no sense &
it's plainly obvious you're hiding behind justifications to express an
opinion when you should just call it crap if you don't like it & leave it
at that or at least use a proper argument to hide behind 0 -
-
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »As for the poem, I'm singing the childrens nursery rhyme in my head &
often jumping to keep the words in time with the tune I get
the meaning but from a musical perspective it doesn't always flow it
kind of jumps the odd time & I think you should try to get the words a
bit more fluid so the reader can unconsciously rattle off the tune & read
in sync to appreciate the meaning & not get distracted playing audio-word jigsaw
That's just my opinion & I think it makes sense because you're taking a
nursery rhyme & not just writing a normal poem, if you agree post the
melodic version so we can sync it with a Metallica song :pac:
Thank you that is the type of feedback I was looking for when I posted it, I will try to change it for the better, I am young and I enjoy writing poetry so I feel that getting feedback on my poems will help me to get better, I am only 18 so I hopefully have a lot of years left to write more and improve.
As regards to the rest of your post, it makes for very interesting reading and thank you for responding in a positive manner.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »As for Cavehill's criticisms:
...
If you replace the political context for a religious one you'll see what I
mean. First Cave asks " Why would you pray to a divinity you don't believe
in?" when if you read the poem the writer is clearly asking himself that
very same question as can be clearly read.
But that's not actually what the writer is asking. The writer is directly and angrily addressing a divinity, not questioning the existence of one. That existence is presumed in the poem.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Then there was the freethinking atheist jibe which illustrates another personal bias creeping out of the unconscious so what is it? Where is the pastiche in following the format of a children's nursery rhyme which is the perfect context to put a poem about religion - i.e. the very structure of religion is to put humanity in the position of the author & this poem is clearly a recognition of this fact only an "unholy" version i.e. an expression from the point of view of a member of the cracks they perceive.
Where is the pastiche? Are you serious? The entire poem is utterly derivative of a children's Christian prayer. I never made any 'jibe', incidentally. I merely posed the question why an atheist would be addressing an entity they don't believe in.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Obviously there is some ulterior motive going on here because after the freethinking jibe & the pastiche jibe the rules come into play, "Well, it's the atheism and agnosticism forum, not the pastiching other beliefs forum.". A moments reading of another thread would find posts mainly about evolution, about science, about pseudoscience, clear & utter pastiching/insulting every single religion (deservedly so in my opinion).
I'd query that. I don't see atheists in general having to justify their intellectual positions via pastiching the beliefs of others, nor do I see it specifically in this forum.
It's perfectly easy to challenge religious beliefs on their intellectual merit, because they simply don't stand up to logic, and that's generally how I've seen such arguments played out in this forum.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Also, this derivative poem insult, I mean
nearly every poem is derivative if you want to go into it honestly
I disagree.sponsoredwalk wrote: »but this trivial fact doesn't stop someone enjoying the poem itself (notice the similarities to the Orwell passage above). I suppose Joyce's Ulysees is merely derivative for copying the format of Homer's Odyssey,
Except that's not what Joyce did.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I mean this is just not a sound argument at all & must be unconsciously expressing some sort of frustration. In the Orwell passage he notes that the people are defending their leader but with Cave it's a defense of something else. I know it's not religious "People criticise theism (and in my opinion rightly so) in here all the time" so what is it?
I thought I'd made myself fairly clear. As a poem, I think it's poor. As an argument for atheism, it's also poor, since its entirety is a railing against a divinity. One could argue perhaps that it is an anti-religious poem, in that it seeks to highlight the failing of religious prayer. But in positing a deity, it isn't atheist.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I'm really interested in why people on boards come out with complete nonsense & it's usually accompanied by virulent attacks on a poster on here, I'd love to find out why in this case.
This is the wrong tree I feel both you and Dades are barking up. I haven't attacked the OP at all, and have no intention of doing so. His post I found intellectually curious in a forum for atheists and I sought to explore why. His explanations have been, at the least, contradictory. The piece remains a curiosity. But no one's attacking anyone personally here, unless one considers the dismissal of considered criticism as 'complete nonsense' and a 'virulent attack.'sponsoredwalk wrote: »None of your arguments
against the poem hold any weight so I'd love to get an honest answer
from you why you didn't like it rather than hiding it behind vacuous
justifications. Just to clarify, the jibes indicate unconscious release,
the invocation of the rules is just childish considering there probabily
isn't a post on this forum solely devoted to religion/atheism in vacuo
& the derivative argument is just a joke.
I don't see how you can suggest my arguments don't hold weight. The poem was presented without commentary initially, and is clearly deist, which I'd have thought was bound to provoke queries for clarity in a forum for freethinkers. Furthermore, it's entirely legitimate to dismiss it in literary terms as a weak pastiche. Comparing it to Ulysses is beyond risible.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I don't mean to target you :P It's just that you're making no sense & it's plainly obvious you're hiding behind justifications to express an opinion when you should just call it crap if you don't like it & leave it at that or at least use a proper argument to hide behind
Perhaps I never clarified my position sufficiently for you. I think as a poem is it poor and derivative. But this isn't the creative writing forum. My primary query about it is its deist nature. I simply don't see how one can coherently forward an argument for atheism by positing a deity. As I said initially, that's an argument for a theology which considers the 'true god' to be either absent or deaf to humanity, a set of beliefs once current within and without Christianity.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »I think what sponsoredwalk's getting at regarding the musicality of the lines (and if it's not, then I'll say it anyway) is that the original poem has a very regular metre of unaccented and accented beats:
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
If I should die before I wake,
I pray the Lord my soul to take.
Your version of it loses this rhythm, and so loses a lot of its power as a parody:
If I die before I wake
My souls not yours, o lord, to take
If I die while Im asleep
O lord your distance I hope youll keep
So, while you've approximated the rhythm of the original, you've got a couple of emphasised syllables in a row between the first and second lines, and a couple of unemphasised syllables on the fourth line. These occur right throughout the poem, and given the source material, you should try to imitate the original iambs.
Exactly, it was late & I couldn't remember iambics & accentuations were
the correct words That is a smart thing to do, to actually highlight
the accentuated beats in writing rather than mentally it's very helpful.
I'm going to remember thatsponsoredwalk wrote:If you replace the political context for a religious one you'll see what I
mean. First Cave asks " Why would you pray to a divinity you don't believe
in?" when if you read the poem the writer is clearly asking himself that
very same question as can be clearly read.Cavehill Red wrote: »But that's not actually what the writer is asking. The writer is directly and angrily addressing a divinity, not questioning the existence of one. That existence is presumed in the poem.Unholy Prayer
I have no faith in God above
No success when it comes to love
Then why pray, oh lord, to thee?
You have no interest in me!
This and similar sentiments in the poem clearly put the "why" question
there & yeah I know the overarching feeling is that god exists the whole
thing is frought with doubt. It's as if you're categorial urges imply that
there is also a questioning religion forum to which the writer can go to
and because of the existence of this phantom forum your argument is
justified :pac:Cavehill Red wrote: »Where is the pastiche? Are you serious? The entire poem is utterly derivative of a children's Christian prayer. I never made any 'jibe', incidentally. I merely posed the question why an atheist would be addressing an entity they don't believe in.
Ulysses is merely a pastiche of Homer by this ridiculous logic:Ulysses chronicles the passage of Leopold Bloom through Dublin during an
ordinary day, 16 June 1904 (the day of Joyce's first date with his future
wife, Nora Barnacle).[3] The title alludes to Odysseus (Latinised into
Ulysses), the hero of Homer's Odyssey, and establishes a series of parallels
between characters and events in Homer's poem and Joyce's novel (e.g.,
the correspondence of Leopold Bloom to Odysseus, Molly Bloom to
Penelope, and Stephen Dedalus to Telemachus).
...
The two schemata which Stuart Gilbert and Herbert Gorman released after
publication to defend Joyce from the obscenity accusations made the links
to the Odyssey clear, and also explained the work's internal structure.
Every episode of Ulysses has a theme, technique, and correspondences
between its characters and those of the Odyssey. The original text did
not include these episode titles and the correspondences; instead, they
originate from the Linati and Gilbert schema. Joyce referred to the
episodes by their Homeric titles in his letters.
linkThe literary experimentation is also wedded to a formal structure that is
consciously linked to the mythical journey recounted in Homer's Odyssey
(Ulysses is the Roman name of that poem's central character). The journey
of the day is given a mythical resonance, as Joyce mapped the events of
the novel to episodes that occur in the Odyssey. linkCavehill Red wrote: »Except that's not what Joyce did.
Okay, we'll just accept your statement rather than all the evidence both
in the book & by the author as a means to quell public hysteria over the
book at the time that he consciously modelled his entire book on the
Odyssey, sorry - he poorly pastiched his work together poorly from ancient
Greek works :rolleyes:Cavehill Red wrote: »Comparing it to Ulysses is beyond risible.
Yes you're right, I hope no one comes in here & actually does something
like that.Cavehill Red wrote: »I'd query that. I don't see atheists in general having to justify their intellectual positions via pastiching the beliefs of others, nor do I see it specifically in this forum.
It's perfectly easy to challenge religious beliefs on their intellectual merit, because they simply don't stand up to logic, and that's generally how I've seen such arguments played out in this forum.
Some atheists justify their arguments with one mode of argument, other
atheists justify their position with others, nobody has to do anything they
choose to defend their positions in whatever way they want.Cavehill Red wrote: »I disagree.
I know you'll disagree because you don't even recognise how Joyce
"pastiched" his work together ala Homeric prose so why would I expect
you to recognise, say, Shakespearean parallel's to Chaucer. In
fact lets look at Shakespeare, I'm sure he was merely pastiching the
bible in the various allusions/parallels he makes, and Chaucer was merely
pastiching Bocaccio in the Knights tale link, it's such a ridiculous
argument & would only come from someone who is already clearly
biased so as to pick any ridiculous tidbit to use against an author.
This is just not a valid criticism anyone wanting to be consistent
could use, unless of course you consider Joyce, Shakespeare &
Chaucer the worlds biggest pastichers :pac:Cavehill Red wrote: »I thought I'd made myself fairly clear. As a poem, I think it's poor. As an argument for atheism, it's also poor, since its entirety is a railing against a divinity. One could argue perhaps that it is an anti-religious poem, in that it seeks to highlight the failing of religious prayer. But in positing a deity, it isn't atheist.
As an argument for atheism it is poor because, shocker, it isn't an argument
for atheism as you clearly understand:Cavehill Red wrote: »So, you're not an atheist by admission.
and as the author clearly told you in his early responses on this thread.
Here again you indirectly let more bias creep out, so far the only fair
response you've given is "As a poem, I think it's poor". Okay, that's
fair, but as we enquire into the reasons we find not a tap of substance,
this is why I've responded - you've hidden behind justifications putting
down this poem ranging from authoritative (forum!:mad:) to literary (pastiche)
to slanderous (freethinking atheist, shure... :rolleyes:) but none of it holds any weight.
This is why I'm curious - just the real reason. We both know that no
matter how many of your pretext justifications fall through for
vacuousness you wont change your mind but there's no point in
hiding behind justifications when they have no substance.Cavehill Red wrote: »This is the wrong tree I feel both you and Dades are barking up. I haven't attacked the OP at all, and have no intention of doing so. His post I found intellectually curious in a forum for atheists and I sought to explore why. His explanations have been, at the least, contradictory.
No, that's the beauty of your indirect mode of approach. First you
rely on the freethinking atheist jibe to highlight a supposed contradiction
you've already decided exists. There is also the pastiching comment
which 100% illustrates complete bias seeing as nearly every literary
endeavour can be textually traced to earlier sources (i.e. sources that
the work is pastiching together).
When the freethinking atheist pretext falls through you then rely on
the authoritative stance via category "why is this in an atheist forum?",
when that is also nonsense. Read any thread on the main page & find
discussions of science, pseudoscience, literature etc... This isn't the
rational thinkers forum it's the atheism/agnosticism forum, ban the
science discussers!!! :mad:
So no justifications thus far hold, also there is no response to the point I
made about the poem mirroring the subject of religion, i.e. the person
believing religion is literally in the position of a child reciting nursery rhymes
to give comfort. What about that realistic parallel??? The witty thing
about this poem is that it, unconsciously I'm sure, captured the spirit of a
naive believer only the author has written the unoly version, i.e.
questioning the naive presupposition religion begins with. To me that is
the best part of the poem, the initial presupposition you think is merely
a pastiche. It's not our fault if you can't recognise that literary quality
of the poem in that through "pastiching" it mirrors a deep reality of religion,
but that very fact highlights the subjectivity of opinion I guess. Still
you have one argument & I have another regarding literary merit, I've
just highlighted through the Orwell passage that people who are hiding
something will always rely on some external justification as you clearly
have seeing as all the pretexts fall flat on their various two-faced fronts.Cavehill Red wrote: »The piece remains a curiosity. But no one's attacking anyone personally here, unless one considers the dismissal of considered criticism as 'complete nonsense' and a 'virulent attack.'
Of course not, all I've been asking you for is honest criticism. Re-read my
posts, I've pointed out the fact that you've been hiding behind ridiculous
justifications. Now, either your criticisms were just wrong seeing as none
of them actually hold up & maybe you'll open-mindedly re-evaluate the
poem, or you can miraculously show us that Joyce really wasn't pastiching
Homer, or Chaucer pastiching Bocaccio, or Shakespeare of Chaucer, or
Longley on Homer (Laertes), or poem X of poem Y (trust me, there's a
treasure trove of "pastiching there") but that this poem is a pastiche and
how that is negative even though it highlights a truth about religion I
mentioned just above this paragraph, or else you're simply going to
continue to argue based off irrational justifications to satisfy an internal
bias you can't even articulate.Cavehill Red wrote: »I don't see how you can suggest my arguments don't hold weight. The poem was presented without commentary initially, and is clearly deist, which I'd have thought was bound to provoke queries for clarity in a forum for freethinkers. Furthermore, it's entirely legitimate to dismiss it in literary terms as a weak pastiche.
But didn't you accuse it of being atheist at first as a justification to
criticise the poet with the "freethinking" contradiction, and then just
above call it a poor atheist poem even though the author has clearly
wrote that he isn't an atheist? Here again we have more freethinking
forum authority invoked, this is not a forum for freethinkers it's a forum
about atheism/agnosticism that has "creationists" (or more likely a troll :P)
arguing in one thread, religious people begging to save us from our sins in
another etc... etc...Just stop the bs authoritative justifications ffs it's
extremely petty.Cavehill Red wrote: »Perhaps I never clarified my position sufficiently for you. I think as a poem is it poor and derivative. But this isn't the creative writing forum. My primary query about it is its deist nature. I simply don't see how one can coherently forward an argument for atheism by positing a deity. As I said initially, that's an argument for a theology which considers the 'true god' to be either absent or deaf to humanity, a set of beliefs once current within and without Christianity.
Alright, you think it's derivative but when we apply this derivative label
rationally we also call Joyce derivative, and Shakespeare derivative, and
Chaucer derivative. I would bet my life you wouldn't make that argument,
& I'll just point out that what you confusedly see as derivative is, to me, a
recognition of an inescapable reality of the mindset & practice of religion.
Also, notice again you are telling us the author is putting forward an
argument for atheism when he has clearly said he is not an atheist :pac:
I think we have uncovered some of your bias, you confusedly assume
this poem is an argument for atheism & bash it on that justification even
though it has been said many times here it is not an argument for atheism.
Wouldn't you agree you're getting that particular point wrong...?Thank you that is the type of feedback I was looking for when I posted it, I will try to change it for the better, I am young and I enjoy writing poetry so I feel that getting feedback on my poems will help me to get better, I am only 18 so I hopefully have a lot of years left to write more and improve.
Cool man no problem, you'll always get criticism so brace yourself
0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Ulysses is merely a pastiche of Homer by this ridiculous logic:
You appear unable to distinguish between allusion and pastiche. Let me assist you. Ulysses alludes to Homer's Odyssey by mapping diminuted events from the classical text onto the daily events that occur in an early 20th century Dubliner's existence.
The OP is pastiching a well-known children's prayer because he emulates the form, rhythm and content of that prayer to subversive ends.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Okay, we'll just accept your statement rather than all the evidence both
in the book & by the author as a means to quell public hysteria over the
book at the time that he consciously modelled his entire book on the
Odyssey, sorry - he poorly pastiched his work together poorly from ancient
Greek works :rolleyes:
Again, the same inability to distinguish between allusion and pastiche. If Joyce had been pastiching Homer, he'd have sought to emulate the form and content, which he didn't. In fact, the reason Ulysses is hailed as a classic Modernist text is because Joyce broke most of the existing form rules for writing fiction in that one book, effectively creating many of the stylistic methods that have been used since.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Yes you're right, I hope no one comes in here & actually does something
like that.
Sadly, you did. It remains risible.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Some atheists justify their arguments with one mode of argument, other
atheists justify their position with others, nobody has to do anything they
choose to defend their positions in whatever way they want.
This is true. I'm of the opinion that an atheist needn't bother to argue their case at all, since logic does that work for them. I'm also of the opinion that the least viable mode of argument in defence of atheism is one reliant on subverting religion via parody, mockery or pastiche. It's simply not a very classy way of going about things, especially when one can simply point to logical reasons for the non-existence of deities.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I know you'll disagree because you don't even recognise how Joyce
"pastiched" his work together ala Homeric prose
Because he didn't. See above.sponsoredwalk wrote: »so why would I expect
you to recognise, say, Shakespearean parallel's to Chaucer. In
fact lets look at Shakespeare, I'm sure he was merely pastiching the
bible in the various allusions/parallels he makes, and Chaucer was merely
pastiching Bocaccio in the Knights tale link, it's such a ridiculous
argument & would only come from someone who is already clearly
biased so as to pick any ridiculous tidbit to use against an author.
This is just not a valid criticism anyone wanting to be consistent
could use, unless of course you consider Joyce, Shakespeare &
Chaucer the worlds biggest pastichers :pac:
Interesting jumble of contradictions there. Of course Shakespeare is derivative. He only produced a single original play plot in his entire career (The Tempest, since you ask.) Chaucer is another case entirely. There's no doubt he utilised a number of sources for his work, but none of it amounts to pastiche.sponsoredwalk wrote: »As an argument for atheism it is poor because, shocker, it isn't an argument
for atheism as you clearly understand
I'm glad we agree, this poem is a poor argument for atheism.sponsoredwalk wrote: »and as the author clearly told you in his early responses on this thread.
Here again you indirectly let more bias creep out, so far the only fair
response you've given is "As a poem, I think it's poor". Okay, that's
fair, but as we enquire into the reasons we find not a tap of substance,
this is why I've responded - you've hidden behind justifications putting
down this poem ranging from authoritative (forum!:mad:) to literary (pastiche)
to slanderous (freethinking atheist, shure... :rolleyes:) but none of it holds any weight.
Again, I have to disagree. Obviously, I feel all my arguments hold weight. By contrast, yours aren't very good. (Joyce as pastiche of Homer, etc.) However, you seem to be driving at something, so perhaps you'd be so good as to tell us what that is.sponsoredwalk wrote: »This is why I'm curious - just the real reason. We both know that no
matter how many of your pretext justifications fall through for vacuousness
you wont change your mind but there's no point in hiding behind
justifications when they have no substance.
Again, your simply stating that my arguments have no substance does nothing to substantiate that position. And again, you hint at some sort of secret motivation of mine of which I'm unaware. So let's hear what that is, please.sponsoredwalk wrote: »No, that's the beauty of your indirect mode of approach. First you
rely on the freethinking atheist jibe to highlight a supposed contradiction
you've already decided exists. There is also the pastiching comment
which 100% illustrates complete bias seeing as nearly every literary
endeavour can be textually traced to earlier sources (i.e. sources that
the work is pastiching together).
Again, you continue to misunderstand what pastiche is.sponsoredwalk wrote: »When the freethinking atheist pretext falls through you then rely on
the authoritative stance via category "why is this in an atheist forum?",
when that is also nonsense. Read any thread on the main page & find
discussions of science, pseudoscience, literature etc... This isn't the
rational thinkers forum it's the atheism/agnosticism forum, ban the
science discussers!!! :mad:
It's a deist text. Specifically, it's Manichean. Why wouldn't I query what its purpose is in a forum for non-deists?sponsoredwalk wrote: »So no justifications thus far hold, also there is no response to the point I
made about the poem mirroring the subject of religion, i.e. the person
believing religion is literally in the position of a child reciting nursery rhymes
to give comfort. What about that realistic parallel???
To the extent that it can be read as an anti-religious text expousing the invalidity of prayer, I'd agree. But it's still deist.sponsoredwalk wrote: »The witty thing
about this poem is that it, unconsciously I'm sure, captured the spirit of a
naive believer only the author has written the unoly version, i.e.
questioning the naive presupposition religion begins with. To me that is
the best part of the poem, the initial presupposition you think is merely
a pastiche. It's not our fault if you can't recognise that literary quality
of the poem in that through "pastiching" it mirrors a deep reality of religion,
but that very fact highlights the subjectivity of opinion I guess. Still
you have one argument & I have another regarding literary merit, I've
just highlighted through the Orwell passage that people who are hiding
something will always rely on some external justification as you clearly
have seeing as all the pretexts fall flat on their various two-faced fronts.
Okay, by now you're just being annoying. You've called me two-faced and repeatedly hinted that I have some sort of secret argument rather than those I've presented.
Rather than report you for abuse, I'm prepared to give you this opportunity to explain yourself. What do you believe I really mean other than what I have actually said? I'd advise you to tread carefully as you do so.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Of course not, all I've been asking you for is honest criticism. Re-read my
posts, I've pointed out the fact that you've been hiding behind ridiculous
justifications. Now, either your criticisms were just wrong seeing as none
of them actually hold up & maybe you'll open-mindedly re-evaluate the
poem, or you can miraculously show us that Joyce really wasn't pastiching
Homer, or Chaucer pastiching Bocaccio, or Shakespeare of Chaucer, or
Longley on Homer (Laertes), or poem X of poem Y (trust me, there's a
treasure trove of "pastiching there") but that this poem is a pastiche and
how that is negative even though it highlights a truth about religion I
mentioned just above this paragraph, or else you're simply going to
continue to argue based off irrational justifications to satisfy an internal
bias you can't even articulate.
You'll need to clarify what 'bias' you're attributing to me.
Also, you still don't seem to understand what pastiche is. I'll further clarify my opinion on the OP's poem. It is mere pastiche, ie it amounts to nothing more than a pastiche. As such it is simply derivative, with none of the additional creativity brought to bear on source texts by Shakespeare or indeed any of the other authors you have cited (incorrectly) as pastiche artists.sponsoredwalk wrote: »But didn't you accuse it of being atheist at first as a justification to
criticise the poet with the "freethinking" contradiction, and then just
above call it a poor atheist poem even though the author has clearly
wrote that he isn't an atheist?
An atheist who doesn't believe in God. A contradiction in terms. As someone else spotted, does that make him a non-freethinking atheist?sponsoredwalk wrote: »Here again we have more freethinking
forum authority invoked, this is not a forum for freethinkers it's a forum
about atheism/agnosticism that has "creationists" (or more likely a troll :P)
arguing in one thread, religious people begging to save us from our sins in
another etc... etc...Just stop the bs authoritative justifications ffs it's
extremely petty.
Yes, it's a forum about atheism not simply for atheists. So what's the relevance of a Manichean text in that context?
Don't get me wrong - I'd love the opportunity to discuss Manichean beliefs on boards.ie. I find them very interesting and they were once an area of study of mine. I've no interest in being prescriptive in that regard. I'm simply expressing bemusement at the blurring of lines between Manicheism and atheism here.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Alright, you think it's derivative but when we apply this derivative label
rationally we also call Joyce derivative, and Shakespeare derivative, and
Chaucer derivative.
Already covered above.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I would bet my life you wouldn't make that argument,
& I'll just point out that what you confusedly see as derivative is, to me, a
recognition of an inescapable reality of the mindset & practice of religion.
As one Joycean scholar once wrote, you can read Finnegans Wake as a cookbook if you like. One can never account for how different readers will perceive meaning in different texts.
I can perceive the argument you make, which would make the poem a Manichean anti-religious text about the incapacity of prayer. Though I think that's stretching credulity a little. But chacun a son gout, as they say.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Also, notice again you are telling us the author is putting forward an
argument for atheism when he has clearly said he is not an atheist :pac:
Not an atheist, but doesn't believe in God. I'm still working that one out.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I think we have uncovered some of your bias, you confusedly assume
this poem is an argument for atheism & bash it on that justification even
though it has been said many times here it is not an argument for atheism.
Wouldn't you agree you're getting that particular point wrong...?
I believe we agree that it is not an argument for atheism. It's clearly deist in intention and content.
But I'd like to return to this 'bias' you continue to seek to attribute to me. Speak up and tell me what it is that you're accusing me of here. All I've done is seek to clarify what was such a confusing text that a number of posters came on to ask the OP where he was coming from, me included.
Since then, I've had this bizarre cross-examination from you incorporating a somewhat snide series of innuendos that I have some hidden agenda.
I don't at all, and wish the OP all the best with both their creative writing and their quest for knowledge in future.
However, I'd like you to clarify your position in this regard. You're at perfect liberty to disagree with what I post or the arguments I make. What is not acceptable is to continually hint in a sinister manner that I have a hidden agenda about which I am not being honest. That comes close to personal abuse, and I think it's time you clarified exactly what you're attempting to insinuate.0 -
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement