Yabby,

Science is the "poetry" of a world devoid of emotional landscape.

http://www.online-literature.com/shelley_percy/672/

..."The lone and level sands stretch far away".....

Yabby,

Loren Eiseley was one of the most distinguished American science writers. In "The Last Neanderthal", and on his way to expounding on the sheer organisation of animal and plant metabolism as one of the most remarkable tendencies in nature, he tells the story of his encounter with a dead dog.

"...On the edge of the littered beach beyond the port I had come upon a dead dog wrapped in burlap, obviously buried at sea and drifted in by the waves. The dog was little more than a skeleton but still articulated, one delicate paw bony paw laid gracefully--as though its owner merely slept, and would presently awaken--across a stone at the water's edge. Around his throat was a waterlogged black strap that showed that he had once belonged to someone. This dog was a mongrel whose life had been spent among the island fishermen....He had romped briefly on shores like this of which he had been returned by an indifferent sea.
I stepped back a little hesitantly from the smell of death, but still I paused reluctantly. Why, in this cove littered with tin cans, bottles and cast of garments, did I find it difficult to turn away? Because, the thought finally came to me, this particular tattered garment had once lived. Scenes of the living sea that would never in all eternity recur again had streamed through the sockets of those vanished eyes. The dog was young...it was of that type of loving creature who had gamboled happily about the legs of men and striven to partake of their endeavours.
Someone had seen crudely to his sea burial, but not well enough to prevent his lying now where came everything abandoned. Nevertheless, vast natural forces had intervened to clothe him with a pathetic dignity. The tide had brought him quietly at night and placed what remained of him asleep on the stones..."

How different would be this tale if Eiseley only had recourse to scientific rhetoric. Science is only "poetic" when translated emotively to human perception.

Sorry Poirot, but I think you are mistaken.

Science is poetic in the sense that you can read it or listen to and it can evoke emotion, especially of the revelatory kind.

It forces you to think about things differently, and this can happen in art or science.

Truth does that sometimes.

It does not need to be 'translated emotively to human perception', whatever that really means, to be poetic. Unless you mean that only humans perceive poetry.

This is all just wonderful!

I loved your quote Yabs...

'Knowledge is the process of piling up facts, wisdom lies in
their simplification.'

Personally I love a simple solution to a complex problem;-)

I find it interesting all this deep thought and quoting geniuses and such and there seems to be an agonising here but no real meeting of minds. Now is the exercise in itself really enjoyable, as I don't perceive that, I perceive more frustration, and slight anxiety here.

So, say, in a weeks time, how will you all feel about this intellectual exercise? If you will bare it no more thought, what have you really taken away from it all? I dunno, are you lot thinking about all this stuff all the time, or only on here. Don't you want to think about more personal or I dunno immediate pragmatic self reflection or something?

I sympathise with Yabbs, is all this pontificating going to lead anywhere?

I seriously think you'd all get more out of a good walk in the park.

It's reminiscant of what my mind goes through when I have a high fever, all this talking and theorising in circles.

'A ration of atheists'

LMFAO Trev!

'*Philosophy and religion are just a crock of sh!t that you've grown out of?*

I see them a bit like golf or knitting. Great for those who are
inclined to invest their time in them, but personally I have other
preferances'

Yabs you're in fine form!

Personally, I like other people talking about all this. I find it entertaining watching them twist away. There's something I like about the Rhythm and Energy in it all. I sometimes imagine them all just going Bahahahha. We're talking sh1t. Aren't we? Bahahaha.

Generally I cant communicate or adequately express the themes that come into my brain. Maybe I'm transferring this onto them. It's against my spirit to try to work the world out too, as I'm scared I would succeed, and then it would all be boring, and scared I wouldn't succeed, and feel silly I wasted my time.

"Who gave them the right to speak on behalf of atheists? The answer of course is "no-one", they simply decided one day that they would co-opt a perfectly straightforward stance that says "there is no God", and turn it into a commercial bestseller."

That's not a problem caused by the atheists, but by the religious that can't think of anything outside a flock of sheep and straw man positions. Welcome to the issue of understanding. It's not all other atheists that should shut up so that you don't have to explain your disbelief.

Outspoken atheists don't speak for everyone anymore than a homosexual speaks for all homosexuals, a christian speaks for every christian, an author speaks for all authors, a philosopher for all philosophers, a TV presenter speaks for all TV presenters ... or you speak for anyone but yourself. Dawkins doesn't speak for me, I have disagreed with him on many points and issues (and yes I have met him) and I don't sit there resenting the fact he is outspoken over his thoughts.

The problem seems to me to come down to the fact they are projecting what they think better than you are, and you don't like it.

I would also point out many of those you term 'new atheists' don't take the stance there is no god, but that there is no sufficient evidence for a god, and XXXX is why they don't believe, and/or XXXX is the problems they have with religion.

Many of these positions are held by many atheists, many are not. One only has to have gone to an event like the GAC to see diversity of opinions and ideas from different atheists.

Maybe you should look at the issue of how atheism is perceived by believers and not just do the same thing. Those that are outspoken are simply putting forward their views, they shouldn't have to refer to the fact you hold differing opinions every time they are asked for yours.

Poirot, if you can find a copy of Daniel Goleman's "Emotional
Intelligence", it was a global best seller, it would pay you to
read Chapter 1 once again, ie What are Emotions for?"

Let me quote:

"All emotions are, in essence, impulses to act, the instant plans
for handling life that evolution has instilled in us".

It goes on in quite some detail and would certainly be worth it for
you to read, as the topic seemingly interests you.