Poemranker [Replying] Thu Nov 21 16:11:41 PST 2024

Replying to a comment on:

The Battle of Fort Bragg (Free verse) by Dovina

I used to stand on grassy bluff of Fort Braggâs ragged coast, observing the battlefield belowâ angry water versus steadfast land. Being young and full of motion, I sided with the sea. Attack was always quenched back then by strength of solid rock. Still I cheered the young and angry sea, and still it pounded. After many battles passed, some broken rocks, a lot of motion, I came again to grassy bluff, and looked from different view. Now memory moved, met solid desire, armies under different flags. Where before the rock was winning, the sea was breaking through. Gentle rolls still swelled in shallows near the shore, then toppled hard against the cliff. Resistance waned in longer view, Some rocks had slid away. Memory kept rolling in, breaking stone, dissolving need, taking it off in painful bits to spread beneath the sea.

ecargo

11-Apr-06/7:26 AM

I know you didn't say that, AlChemy. I flipped it for two reasons:

1. To fuck with you a little bit. ;)
2. Because *for me* it IS adding, not eliminating.

Do I allow for the possibility that your grand architect exists? Sure--in the same way I allow for pirate ghosts and unicorns. It's possible that somewhere, on some level or dimension or whatever, that pirate ghosts exist. Their existence may explain a lot of things (all those missing socks, for one thing). But they're not necessary to my world view. They are to yours (well, okay, pirate ghosts may not be). That's entirely fine with me. I have no interest in converting you to my way of thinking. I thank you for affording me the same courtesy.

Seriously--if you define God as "that which is unknowable," and I believe that there are things that are unknowable (at the present moment or in the future), then, sure, I suppose by your definition, I believe in "God." (I don't call that God though. I call it "things that we don't know yet but may one day." Of course, that makes "God" a shifting target or goal.)

Dovina's smugness and your assumptions aside, just because I'm not a deist doesn't mean I'm a Vulcan, you know. I'm not ruled entirely by logic. I take a lot of things on faith. (For example, I believe quite firmly that our magnificent -=Dark Angel=- is the existential dragon from John Gardner's _Grendel_. And, also, one hell of a gumshoe.) I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning if I didn't. Spirituality or, if you prefer, self-actualization (to go all Maslow on you) is likely as important to me as it is to you. Millions of people manage to live lives full of hope and joy and spiritual fulfillment without any deity involved. To think otherwise is pretty fucking arrogant.

And one last thing: I don't see anything terrible about having an argument based on logic/Occam's Razor about God's existence or lack thereof. I don't see it as an attack on anyone's faith, and I wonder that you do. Logic is all about ways of thinking and arguing. For me, the logic/Occam's/scientific method part of this discussion was what was interesting. By the way, Zodiac gave a good description of what Occam's Razor is. It's not so much what's "simple" as what's nonessential (to my way of thinking). And it's a logic platform. That's all.

Thanks for the discussion. I found it interesting. Now I suppose I'd better go do what they pay me to do. ;-D See ya later.

Track and Plan your submissions ; Read some Comics ; Get Paid for your Poetry

An internet tradition since June 9, 2001