Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/6:23 PM
Oh. Okay. Then what have you been doing your last half-dozen posts?
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/6:20 PM
Then why not leave him out of this part? He'd be the first to admit that spiritual experience is not his territory, beyond the suggestion that it's probably and most-simply a psychological phenomenon.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/6:13 PM
Um, I do. Because he's only relevant in the way I've already pointed out. Namely, that asking "why are we here?" is a psychological phenomenon, roughly equivalent with having dreams about possessing a bold black moustache.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/6:07 PM
Oh. Well I'd like to ask that you don't mention him anymore in this context. He's only relevant in the way I've already pointed out.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/6:06 PM
Don't be silly. I know why I'm in Alaska. I also know (as well as anyone knows) why I'm a human being on the planet Earth in 2006. The desire for "a reason" for existence presumes God. You shouldn't be so surprised at finding God at the end of that goose-hunt.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/5:59 PM
NOTE: Occam says the question "why are we here?" is likely just a psychological phenomenon and a result of our explainable, evolutionary, question-asking tendencies. If you're going to abuse Occam, at least abuse him right. Now carry on with your nonsense.
Re: Semaphores from the Chaos by cyan9	9-Apr-06/4:42 PM
Semaphores.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/4:37 PM
Oh, I see. I've never in my life asked the question "Why are we here?" so I'm probably not the one to talk about this with.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/1:53 PM
Theory #1 ISN'T much of a theory. That's why it's a GOOD theory. It just says, this appears to have happened. A corollary to #1 should be: Of course, that's just how we think the universe started (ie, from nothing), but we could totally be wrong on that. It's like this: Say my socks are missing. (A) Something occured which caused my socks to not be where I left them, though I could be mistaken about where I think I left them. (B) Ghosts exist and, in addition to haunting people and seeking justice for their wrongful deaths and occasionally just wanting to send loving messages to their mourning loved ones, they also steal socks, because ghosts are masters and guardians of all socks, with ectoplasmic properties that allow them to physically manipulate socklike materials. Obviously, (B) is more interesting, it attempts to explain more things, and it's more personally gratifying, but out of the two theories, which assumes the least? Which introduces the fewest new concepts? Besides that, (A) allows (B) to possibly be true, while (B) does not allow (A) to be true. Advantage: (A), unless you're just looking to "spice things up," which is why I said so to Dovina. PS-Did you click on the Wikipedia link? It cogently presents the magic/faith argument against applying Occam to God.
Re: a comment on Or Outward by MacFrantic	9-Apr-06/1:03 PM
I did. I don't see how capitalizing a word throws off the rhythm. A reader who reads a capitalized word differently is ignorant and unworthy of your poem.
Re: a comment on Or Outward by MacFrantic	9-Apr-06/12:26 PM
For what it's worth, you need to capitalize Furies'.
Re: a comment on Or Outward by MacFrantic	9-Apr-06/11:19 AM
I don't know what's worse, you explaining The Furies, or the fact that nobody knew about them.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	9-Apr-06/8:46 AM
Yes, of course I'm using Occam's razor as an argument against God's existence. Then Dovina's "counterargument" was that "Understanding God is not a simplistic thing, as zodiac implies," which is absurd because, as far as Occam's razor applies to the existence of God, the God model of the universe is less simplistic than the non-God model, and therefore less likely. Conclusions: She didn't understand. As far as the argument that there had to be a God to create a universe from zero, consider the following two theories: 1. Some hitherto unknown property of extremely dense supermasses/singularities/whatever allowed the universe to appear from essentially nothing, instantaneously. 2. A Being who does all sorts of things, including creating life, answering prayers, teaching humans lessons, causing miracles, sending His only son to be crucified for our sins, and numbering the sheeps and goats ALSO happened to create the universe from nothing. By Occam's Razor, theory #2 is a load of crap. That's all I'm saying.
Re: a comment on James The Dashing Pirate(Rewrite) by Luzr	8-Apr-06/5:03 PM
Yawn.
Re: a comment on James The Dashing Pirate(Rewrite) by Luzr	8-Apr-06/5:03 PM
Yawn.
Re: James The Dashing Pirate(Rewrite) by Luzr	8-Apr-06/11:56 AM
You could improve this poem by voting yourself a bunch of tens.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	8-Apr-06/11:46 AM
I'm not only considering your own benefit. I suppose somehow you're going to try to turn this into I'M the self-centered one.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	8-Apr-06/10:37 AM
God is the Meat-Hat of Invisibility I call upon to save me from poets' silliness. Are you actually illiterate? The article above says nothing about "understanding God". It doesn't say anything about God being a simplistic thing. What it says about God is that a God-inclusive model of the universe is if anything MORE COMPLICATED than other models. Why don't you try reading it again with your eyes uncrossed? PS-You are idiotic.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	7-Apr-06/9:03 PM
That's not what Occam or wikipedia is talking about at all. It's certainly not what I'm talking about.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	7-Apr-06/9:02 PM
1. It's a gift. 2. AlChemy was asking awhile ago about logical approaches to God's existence. 3. It will always be relevant to you. I think it's because you find the universe so simple and comprehensible you feel you need to "spice it up" some.