Re: Lost by alvinb	Dovina 208.127.216.216	15-Feb-08/3:24 PM
added - grammar
Re: Sleep *edited by hobojo	Dovina 208.127.216.216	15-Feb-08/3:22 PM
emits sound
Re: a comment on Should have a world record by alvinb	alvinb 122.52.99.32	11-Feb-08/10:11 PM
ya man....
Re: Paddling West by Dovina	some deleted user 63.127.193.79	11-Feb-08/4:33 AM
I love the epigraph--it sets the tone of the poem beautifully. Nice work.
Re: The South Side of Racine, 1988 by jessicazee	some deleted user 24.243.173.248	7-Feb-08/7:48 PM
Jessica from Park? Let me know...didn't know I was in a poem:-0
Re: Nameless Stranger (a rensaku) by gunsaku	Dovina 75.82.69.253	6-Feb-08/4:12 PM
good except penultimate stanza. Adding supernatural is a disappointment. First 5 verses are best.
Re: Empty Eyes by Rachelle Egan	Dovina 75.82.69.253	6-Feb-08/4:07 PM
The rhymes are forced. Rwanda deserves better.
Re: Should have a world record by alvinb	Dovina 75.82.69.253	6-Feb-08/4:06 PM
Do you really think your tears and your heartaches are greater than any others? "Do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you." I Pet 4
Re: Six deaths by Caducus	some deleted user 63.127.193.79	5-Feb-08/7:36 PM
This is a fabulous poem. The language is impecable and each stanza has been beautifuly crafted to carry its own weight. Well done.
Re: Lost by alvinb	some deleted user 63.127.193.79	2-Feb-08/9:49 AM
You need to proofread this. My vote would have been higher if you had'nt voted for yourself.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 79.65.196.212	1-Feb-08/6:35 PM
Sociopathy is a mental deformity. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in Jesu. I have never implied otherwise. An no, I don't think instinct is magic. Ironically for you, that's what a religious person thinks. He thinks the world and everything that's in it was made by a magic man floating around in another dimension. I think instinct is a product of evolution. It's to our species' advantage that we have the capacity for empathy and co-operation. You can see similar traits in other social animals, like elephants, or chimps. Finally, your point about humanist morality being derived from religion is the opposite of the truth. Nearly all religions (even ones you must think are made up) share common basic morals (don't murder, steal, lie, be gay, etc.) They all make wildly different claims about the nature of God, and they all have their fair share of claptrap morals (don't eat bats), but on the fundamentals they tend to agree. Why? Because they are man-made, not God-made, and it's human nature to behave in that way. If you truly think our basic morals are God's invention, then presumably you're of the opinion that before Moses came down from the top of Mount Sinai, the Israelites went about the place killing, stealing, lying, and adulterating at will.
Re: The South Side of Racine, 1988 by jessicazee	some deleted user 24.243.173.248	31-Jan-08/12:00 PM
Hey, is this the Jessica that went to Park??? let me know if you are!!!
Re: loneliness untold by francis nor capule	candaliesa 67.142.130.38	29-Jan-08/12:12 PM
2 yrs later i still enjoy reading this poem... 5yrs after my divorce. and we my ("ex" and i) run into eachother. and i didn't care anymore.. the pain is still there from what he did.. but i don't carry it like i use to..
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	ALChemy 71.68.4.11	28-Jan-08/4:58 PM
All of the reasons you listed for morality are either influences from religion or based on cold logic. There's also those primal impulses that our primitive ancestors passed on but those too were aquired one of those two ways(unless you believe instinct comes to us magically). Just because your influences weren't straight from the church doesn't mean they didn't originate from religion. It's hard to explain what a world without religion would be like because it hasn't been observed yet. If you want a book on morality try Lord of the Flies. When there's no father/god-figure to punish us eventually we run amok. Unless of course we generate some type of dictatorial government run by incorruptible computers(good luck). In short, your morals have been influenced by the great Jesu despite your distaste for him. As far as blaming religion for horrible crimes against humanity goes...Well it's like blaming your parents. Sooner or later you have to grow up and take responsibility for your actions. Unfortunately sociopaths live among athiests and believers alike. You seem to be implying that religion is the birthplace of sociopaths. If so then why so many athiest murderers? Please try not to become so unraveled. You're turning back into the Joker again and he's gotten quite old and predictable.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.84.68.242	28-Jan-08/2:25 PM
Your arrogance has swollen so far beyond thunderdome that it has retracted into its own balls and is now fuelling a second -=Even_Bigger_Arrogance=- that will blot out the sun and be gay. To your first point, I agree religion can force a moral consensus (usually by threat of divine punishment), but obviously that's only an intra-denominational consensus. When it comes to forging consensus between people of a different faiths, its record is APPALLING. It has done more to divide the human race than just about anything else, with some unbelievably violent consequences. I'm ashamed of you. Secondly, are you seriously arguing for religion on the grounds that it speeds up moral decision making? (a) I don't think that's worth considering in the first place, and (b) even if it was, religion is probably one of the more long winded routes to making moral decisions, because it relies on Revealed Truth rather than any innate sense of conscience (you've got to trawl through some pretty obscure Bible verses before you discover that eating bats is wrong... or have you committed Deuteronomy to memory?) Finally, there are many value systems that have nothing to do with God. Chiefly because healthy people do not require a divine spark to realise that murder is naughty. Probably the most popular among atheists is secular humanism, but an individual's value system is really inspired by a myriad of factors, from their formative years at a Respected Public School, to whether or not they get a 2:1 in Combined Media Studies from Loughborough University. And nearly all literature (to name but one of the Arts) informs morality in some way: Dickens, Orwell, Burgess, Shakespeare, Steinbeck, Tolkien, Stephen King's It, and so on. There isn't just One Book, One Chosen People, One Jesu (but if there had to be One Book, that book would be Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab.)
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 86.154.21.1	27-Jan-08/4:09 PM
That should be "un--=Dark_Angel=--like".
Re: Voice of the World by Dovina	Dovina 208.127.216.137	27-Jan-08/2:55 PM
Beginning a new thread like a charismatic renewal of an old religion, this is an answer to atheists, a declaration of victory in the battle between enlightened secularism and Christianity. Or stated with recognition of human frailty, as Jesus taught to state, I preface anything I say with realization that Betelgeuse is 800 times the sun’s diameter and is so far away that nobody living today will see it, but only its light sent hundreds of years ago. And though it is unimaginably big and far, much greater things were flung by someone (Oh, sorry, that presumes too much.) My mistake, of course, is inferring God from science, instead of not-god from science. Now where were we? Oh yes, we were relating morality and religion. Or stated another way, we were relating principles that hold society in harmony, with ideas about God. They seem unrelated to me, but I find it interesting that most religions hold the same morals in regard to stealing, killing, fraud, and the like. Religions differ on morals about the eating of bats, the covering of women’s faces, and the killing of insects. The first set of morals derives from polite society’s needs, and work just fine either couched in dogma or without religion. The second begin with writings and cleric’s decrees. Just because these “morals” get stuck into religion does not make them part of true religion. What could the eating of bats have to do with recognition of God? Jesus made this point clear, as anyone can see from reading him apart from later writings of his church. Christianity is about Christ (duh) not about superseded Old Testament texts or something a monk wrote in the fourteenth century. In summary: don’t get me started.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	ALChemy 71.68.4.11	26-Jan-08/11:29 AM
And your arrogance blinds you. I'm merely saying religion is an effective way to create a moral consensus. Considering many moral decisions have to be made quickly it comes in quite handy. I have no doubt that athiests and the like can be very moral. Honestly though, do you really think any of the Jews want to die? I mean if we're going to question common sense here then I'm afraid we've both wasted far too much time. Even if part of they're objective is to not kill the baby they still would like to survive nonetheless. One more question: If atheistic morality is not influenced by emotionless cold logic nor by societies religeous influences (however ancient and rooted in the subconcious they may be) then where does it come from?
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 79.73.233.23	25-Jan-08/4:12 PM
Perhaps you've been eating too many bats.
Re: a comment on Voice of the World by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 79.73.233.23	25-Jan-08/4:11 PM
You are an extremely arrogant young man. "The objective of each Jew is to survive." Is it? Science can't tell you anything about what each Jew's objective is. Given that they probably wouldn't smother the baby, it's clear their objective is a little more complicated than mere survival. It's probably something like "survive, provided you don't end up fucking over another Jew in the process." Now you could conceivably tell a computer to ASSUME some amoral objective (maximise survival), and then have it find the most efficient way of achieving that (smother the baby), but obviously that has nothing to do morality, and most importantly, NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT A GROUP OF ATHEISTS WOULD DO IN A SIMILAR SITUATION. Atheism doesn't mean "stop having emotions". Atheists are just as prone to their impulses as theists are. Atheism also doesn't say anything about whether or not baby smothering is A Good Idea. The actions of an atheist are determined by his value system, just as those of the Jew are determined by theirs. The only difference is that the atheist's value system hasn't been corrupted by an Omelette of Ancient Texts that read like the ramblings of a drugged horse.