09 Jan 09
Originally posted by divegeesterlol, yes its an art form, there is composition, movement, direction, themes, creativity, imagination, bold strokes and subtle ones, sometimes we achieve our objectives, sometimes we don't, but for the most part, its a form of self expression, we express our thoughts on the chess board, certainly for you or I it is a non commercial enterprise. if we want to improve, we are forced to look at ourselves, why we thought in a certain way, its beautiful, it takes humility and patience, but i know how you feel, im getting hammered left right and mostly in the center as we speak!
And yet, you were saying something about chess being art, robbie?
My chess is an excellent "illustration" of real life abstract defeatism...
09 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethere is
lol, yes its an art form, there is composition, movement, direction, themes, creativity, imagination, bold strokes and subtle ones, sometimes we achieve our objectives, sometimes we don't, but for the most part, its a form of self expression, we express our thoughts on the chess board, certainly for you or I it is a non commercial enterprise. if we ...[text shortened]... , but i know how you feel, im getting hammered left right and mostly in the center as we speak!
Sacrifice😵
18 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkai think that it may be different Palynka, for when one sees a religious slogan, it is not actively trying to call into question the validity of anothers faith, not directly, although by its very nature it may offend an atheist, however it is merely trying to present its own point of view without recourse to anothers, wheres the atheistic stance is a little more subversive as it openly challenges anothers faith, does it not?
It's funny how some people feel that the right to freedom of religion doesn't include atheism.
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHear me out, as I recognize I've been abrupt with you in the past. I apologize.
i think that it may be different Palynka, for when one sees a religious slogan, it is not actively trying to call into question the validity of anothers faith, not directly, although by its very nature it may offend an atheist, however it is merely trying to present its own point of view without recourse to anothers, wheres the atheistic stance is a little more subversive as it openly challenges anothers faith, does it not?
I would say that part of the reason I reacted negatively to your post in an earlier thread is for exactly this reason. I reacted to your assertions as a challenge.
18 Jan 09
Originally posted by Hand of Hecatemy friend such humility is deserving of a listening ear! sometimes its the nature of the forum, for some reason spirituality is such an emotive subject and both theists and non theists say things we would not ordinarily say, so lay it on, whatever you got, if a compromise cannot be reached a mutual understanding should be within our grasp.
Hear me out, as I recognize I've been abrupt with you in the past. I apologize.
I would say that part of the reason I reacted negatively to your post in an earlier thread is for exactly this reason. I reacted to your assertions as a challenge.
19 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are many Hindu and Buddhist bus drivers that would see the same in a Christian message. So would Hindu and Buddhist bus drivers be justified in doing the same thing?
i think that it may be different Palynka, for when one sees a religious slogan, it is not actively trying to call into question the validity of anothers faith, not directly, although by its very nature it may offend an atheist, however it is merely trying to present its own point of view without recourse to anothers, wheres the atheistic stance is a little more subversive as it openly challenges anothers faith, does it not?
Why can't we all simply listen to words and be challenged without feeling offended? Is it not part of the right of freedom of religion to openly state the justification for one's faith (or lack thereof)?
19 Jan 09
Originally posted by Palynkayes, undoubtedly one should not be offended, although this seems to have been the original premise why the adds were started, however consider this, when we see a christian slogan (actually they really annoy me for they seem so ill conceived and without explanation) for example, 'god loved the world so much that he gave his only begotten son.....everlasting life etc etc', if we are a Hindu or a Bhudist will we not conclude that this is just the affirmation of the christian faith, it does not in anyway seek to refute nor undermine our own, but simply presents an alternative. can the same be said of the atheistic declaration that there is probably no God, is this not a direct challenge with a subtle subversive element. it may therefore be argued that this is not really an attempt to express a religious stance or lack of but to directly refute another and as a consequence it is nothing less than subversive jingoistic propaganda. does it challenge Christianity or any other faith for that matter?, probably not, but now a whole new can of worms has been opened, for if an atheistic stance is to be declared there can be no valid objection to those insipid slogans however well meaning they are, that Christianity is so fond of putting outside their churches!
There are many Hindu and Buddhist bus drivers that would see the same in a Christian message. So would Hindu and Buddhist bus drivers be justified in doing the same thing?
Why can't we all simply listen to words and be challenged without feeling offended? Is it not part of the right of freedom of religion to openly state the justification for one's faith (or lack thereof)?