| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
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.
Up the ladder:
Remembrance
Down the ladder:
strawberries
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.0
Posted: April 5, 2006 11:19 AM PDT; Last modified: April 6, 2006 11:19 AM PDTWeighted score: 5.2384057 Overall Rank: 4093 Comments:
echo - ecargo.
I'll add that I think its a stanza too long and it could be ended perfectly in 5. Your knocking out some good stuff and retaining the focusa as you write which m,akes reading you a good thing.
Thanks C. Iâve changed it some and have kept Stanza 6, but with changes.
Did us Brits have our asses kicked at fort bragg?
Bloody Tea was the end of us lol.
I think she means Fort Bragg in Mendocino, CA, so I don't think so. I could be wrong though.
FWIW, you (well, the Hessian troops under British command) burned my hometown to the ground in 1779, leaving only a handful of buildings standing (all royalist sympathizers). There's a cannon ball still embedded in a rock down the street from me (little known local secret). After landing on our beach, the Redcoats marched through town and inland, burning everything in their path. The British general, Tryon, according to local legend, watched my town burn from a rocking chair placed on the East Rocks bluffs. Always loved that story. Funny how we still have a Fort Tryon across the state line in New York--you'd think we would have renamed it. Another local legend claims (with decent substantiation) that the song, Yankee Doodle ("stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni"), was prompted by the ragtag uniforms of a regiment from my hometown. LOL--there's an aside for you! You got me going--I find local history fascinating. :)
You are right about the location of Fort Bragg.
You might want to specify Ft Bragg, CA. The Ft Bragg most people know is the gigantic one in North Carolina, home of, among other things, the Delta Force and the most pawn shops per capita anywhere.
Cool, I love history too and those pesky redcoats were party poopers.
I don't like 'squelched', it doesn't feel poetic enough for this piece. Perhaps 'quenched' would do the trick better?
Love the idea behind this and I love the format, I was expecting rhymes at first but it didn't feel any the worse for being unrhymed. Now, this might be evidence that I need to take a dyslexia test, but 'many battles passed/some broken rocks' had this wonderful effect of making me also read 'boken bottles', a perfect illustration (to me, at least) of the rocks. Was that intentional? Great last stanza.
'boken bottles'? I really do need that dyslexia test...
Thanks for the suggestion on âsquelched.â Iâve changed it to âquenched in the edit, along with some other changes. âbroken bottles,â however, are mixed in with ground-up rock that litters the seas floor.
This is actually good.. 10!!
In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there is no need for a "God" (to explain the universe), then the God construct is subject to elimination via Occam's Razor.
An example of such an argument would take this form: we have a set of models which does a good job of predicting various aspects of our experience (theories from physics, biology, psychology, etc.). Taken together these constitute a larger model of our overall experience, call it a World model. Elements (sub-models) of this World model which do not contribute to the precision or improve the accuracy of the model should be "cut away" with Occam's Razor. Given this foundation it can be seen that World models including God have an extra element that does not improve accuracy or precision. A common response is that God can "simplify" the world model, for instance by providing a less complex explanation of the origin of species via creationism (i.e. even though we are adding the God-submodel we are removing a more complicated "evolution" model achieving a simpler theory). Concurrently, some over-simplify Ockham's principles as meaning "the easiest explanation must be correct" and argue that given the complexity of the Universe and the extremely small chance that it would have developed this way simply by a series of accidents, there must be a driving force that built the universe to be so complex. However, such arguments are problematic on at least two counts (aside from describing natural processes as "accidents"). First, the "evolution model" is simply a way of describing the emergent properties of simpler theories of biochemistry (DNA replication and control of biological systems), probability theory (inevitable errors in complex systems such as DNA replication, the differential replication rates of traits and genes with differing effects on survival and reproduction). Evolutionary biology introduces nothing (no new entities or hypothetical constructs) that are not already present in these more basic sciences/processes. It simply produces a theoretical system that enables us to perceive the patterns that these basic processes produce. Just as the notion of an ocean wave is not a phenomenon/concept requiring any new, hypothesized elements other than the behavior of many water molecules, wave theories enable us to see patterns and make predictions about the aggregate behavior of many molecules. The God model, unlike evolution theory, introduces a truly new, unrelated element to the explanatory system. Occam's Razor can shave away the God concept without affecting any of the basic concepts of science. If we try to cut away evolution theory, we have to shave away an enormous amount of knowledge about the world, as evolution theory is just a name for the patterns basic processes produce. Second, the evolution model and the patterns it enables us to see has produced countless accurate predictions that would not be possible without the theory. Critics who claim the two models are equal do not take into account that the evolution sub-model is necessary for accuracy and precision (for instance the evolution models makes many good predictions about where we will find various kinds of fossils). Since removing the evolution sub-model reduces the accuracy and precision of the World model, unlike the God model that produces no novel predictions, it must be kept (in some form). Another proposed justification for including the God sub-model has been that it improves accuracy or precision around certain specific subsets of data, and thus is a better fit when we consider all the data. An example of this would be the claim that "religious experience," such as visions, voices, and other sorts of personal experience are not explained/predicted by the other sub-models, in this case sub-models of human psychology without the God concept. In examining this question, the principle of Occam's Razor would direct us to remove the God sub-model if it did not provide better predictions about those sorts of experiences than alternative sub-models about human psychology, and to keep it if it did. Some people thus argue that Occam's Razor puts the question of the existence of God squarely within the realm of testable science. I.e. the idea of "God" is no different from any other idea, and can be evaluated with the same criteria we use for other models. While arguments taking the above form are common, they are not accepted among most psychologists or philosophers of science. No experiment or observation has produced any data of religious experience that cannot be at least equally well explained by psychological theories without the traditional God concept. And, possibly more important, is that the psychological theories employed in the explanation of such experienceâprecisely like evolutionary theory, as described aboveâhave no new elements introduced just to explain this specific data set. The psychological theories of religious experience are simply ways of organizing more basic scientific concepts and explanations of human perception and experience. They are thus based on elements necessary to produce general accurate predictions of human experience and they produce accurate predictions of religious experience that can then be tested. The God model produces no testable predictions of even religious experience that cannot be produced without it, and it can be "shaved away" without affecting basic theories needed for more general explanations. On the other hand, Kierkegaard argued that there were no testable predictions of the existence of God and further argued that the concept of faith made any testable observations self-defeating. It is difficult to explain humankind's unique understanding of good and evil and its ability to love and hate -- relative to the rest of the animal kingdom -- from a purely evolutionary standpoint. In this sense, it is not reasonable to simply combine all of the material observations of our universe and apply Occam's Razor to justify the non-existence of God. Indeed, William of Ockham himself did not make this leap, being himself very well educated in religion. The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief, similarly to Roger Bacon. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned with demonstrating that creation is contingent and the Creator is free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Raz
Nicely copied, and excellently pasted. For whatever reason, I cannot imagine.
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.
To a microscopic organism we are the world, the world is it's solar system, the solar system it's galaxy the galaxy it's universe, and the universe it's God.
p.s. The simplest solution is not always the best one. You should know that.
Most believers agree that God is something that exists beyond our comprehension. Are you to say that nothing exists beyond our comprehension. You may have a diffrent word for it, you may choose not to attach symbolism but I'm sure you haven't ruled out the possibility of such a thing as the incomprehensible.
Could there not be something greater that our universe exists in that we haven't found yet? Maybe there are beings that govern that greater than the universe place and maybe they like to be called God by the little people in the universes the beings have created.
That's not what Occam or wikipedia is talking about at all. It's certainly not what I'm talking about.
I don't think he's really talking about God either. Maybe somebody's version of God but not mine. My version of God is the carrot that eternally dangles in front of the noses of us donkeys.
Is that your own wording for that frustrating aspect of God? If so, Bravo! Or, more appropriatly, Hee Haw! Jesus said, âThe kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up.â When the disciples asked him why he speaks to the masses mostly in parables, he said, "The secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear.â Understanding God is not a simplistic thing, as zodiac implies. I wish it were.
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.
I am idotic. Therefore, there is no point in discussing anything with me that an idiot cannot understand. How logical are you for trying?
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.
Obviousdly, you're not considering my benefit. If you were the self-centered one (looked to your own betterment) you would not associate with idiots. Rather, you'd find reasonably intelligent people from whom you might glean an insight or two.
I used it in the first poem that I posted here.
http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.j
Guess I missed that one. See my comment there.
There had to be a catalyst, a vagina of nothingness that gave birth to the universe. If not then let's stop using zeros. We seem to always think we're on the verge of finding out everything when the truth is we barely know anything and what the only thing we're on the verge of is, is the limits of our own comprehension. I think what Occam is saying is that saying I don't know to these things is better than guessing. You can't blame people for thinking that you're using Occam's Razor as an argument against God's existence considering it's one of the most popular arguments used by atheists around the world.
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.
Yes, she does seem to have gotten that backwards, But why give her such an upsetting "gift"?
#1 isn't really much of a theory. Some unknown entity of whatever allowed the universe to appear from nothing. #2 is God allowed the universe to appear from nothing. Now that's more of a theory. #1 is basically saying I don't know. Arguing against God's existence is as silly as arguing for God's existence. We don't know and probably never will. Your guess is he doesn't, my guess is he does. We're both just guessing. To assert anything more would be a load of crap. Believe it or not you can only ride the science bus for so far and then it runs out of gas. God's bus is powered by magic.
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.
I'm just saying that it's one thing to say we have no or very little concrete evidence that God exists and another to say well God just doesn't exist. Occam's Razor isn't really an argument against God's existence it's just an argument against making unjustifiable assumptions. There is a possibility that God exists, even more likely if he exists in a form beyond our comprehension. I like the idea of that. The idea that we aren't just here by accident and that things have a reason for being. Show me where science can truly answer the question "Why are we here?" and I'll eat YOUR hat. George Carlin had the best non-god answer: To make plastic. My only idea of what God is, is that God's the most satisfying answer to why are we here. Forget about all the collected myths around God, I'm talking about the basic concept of a being that might have created us and/or our universe. There may be a completely different set of physical laws in which that being might exist. I'm just saying what you think is imposible now me be child's play in the future. Don't be like the guy that said man will never fly and totally rule out the chance of God existing and I'll try not to preach any of my myths on people.
p.s. Yes I did read it. I just thought you'd find the magic bus line humorous. I've been dying to see Sarah Silverman's Jesus is Magic, haven't you?
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.
So we and everything else are here for no good reason. I see. Considering the miserable places you've got yourself into in the last couple years, maybe you should start asking that question. The scorching desert and in subzero Alaska.
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.
Name something that surely happens for no reason. Science is about finding reasons but apperantly that all goes out the window for you when one starts asking questions about things you don't have your own satisfying answer to. Do you think all that knowledge you've accumulated was always there? People had to go looking for it. They had to theorize and test theories. If everything else happens for a reason then why not the origin of the first thing. The whole idea that your theory is simpler than mine or someone elses is retarded. E=mc2 looks simple but it's not. I really would like to know what your theory is about what started it all and no whatchamacallit words are allowed this time.
Here's a better site for his theory:http://www.paul-almond.com/Occams
Tons of things happen for reasons. Science finds reasons for them all the time. If I drop my corndog it will accelerate toward the earth at a predictable rate because masses exert an attraction upon each other according to a formula. My dog died because it was stupid and ate trash. Some matter fizzes because at certain energy levels it is atomically unstable. I could go on, but this isn't the point.
I didn't ask for things that happen for "A" reason. I asked for things that happen for "NO" reason. By the way there is a lot of things that science hasn't found a verifiable reason for, namely what I've been talking about, the great catalyst.
Yeah, I thought I'd deleted that comment. Anyway, see below for my "reason for existence". I didn't say that there was no reason for anything, only that there was no point to asking for more than the simple, obvious reason for existence.
Pretty much everything happens for reasons. That's barking up the wrong tree. The difference between us isn't that you believe in reasons and I don't. It's that if I say, here's a simple reason why I'm here based on things we know, you'll say, no, I don't like that reason, I want a better one.
Once again, here's the reason, without "whatsit" words: By some principle we don't understand yet, everything in the universe exploded out of the head of a pin in one instant a long time ago. We see that when there's a lot of stuff really dense, like in a black hole, certain things happen, and it seems this "Big Bang" might be like one of those things. All this stuff that exploded out of the Big Bang had certain characteristics. One of those is that it attracted itself; it had "gravity". As the stuff from the Big Bang zipped around in space, it began to gather together because of gravity. Another of the characteristics of this stuff is that, in its smallest parts, it had even smaller spinning parts. That meant that the stuff tended to gather together in spheres and to have spin. One of the smaller spheres ended up spinning around a large sphere that was big enough with enough gravity that it had begun to crush its insides, creating energy and heat. The position of the small sphere and the big sphere came from the way things bounce off of and attract each other. The small sphere happened to have a certain kind of stuff -- let's just start saying "matter" -- that, over a long long time and a process we don't totally understand yet, became "life". This "life" wanted to eat other "live" stuff, so a set of basic things started happening. The bigger, faster, more mobile life could catch and eat the smaller, weaker life. Life that could form more of itself had a better chance of not getting all eaten, too. So a lot of "live" things got eaten -- a WHOLE lot -- but a couple kinds of life managed to produce more of themselves and, if they were big and strong, they produced big and strong "offspring". It might not have gone this way. They could have all just died, but that wouldn't be much of a story, would it? Maybe that does happen tons of places we never hear from. Anyway, the strongest of the big and strong "offspring" had better chances of not getting eaten and THEY had better chances of having big and strong offspring too. This doesn't mean that only the strong survived. That's never been true about evolution. But you can see how if bigger/stronger lifes have just a 1% better chance of living than smaller/weaker lifes, over a very very long time there are going to be more bigger stronger lifes.
So the lifes (we'll call them "animals" now) kept producing offspring and kept getting bigger and stronger. Smarter, too, because smartness was a good way of getting away from things that were trying to eat you, especially if you were smaller and weaker than some of them. Over millions and millions of years, and with a LOT of accidents and things happening, one kind of these animals kept becoming smarter. These are what we call "humans", and they had to be smart because they weren't as strong as most things. Fortunately (for the humans) it turned out that being smart was better than being big, because you could figure out how to find food better and stay out of the way of things like glaciers. Among these "humans", the ones who asked questions had greater chances of living than the ones who didn't. These weren't "big" questions in the beginning, just things like "should I hunt mammoth here or there?" or "why don't I move to that valley where there's better food?" Asking questions became an "evolutionary trait", meaning the humans who survived were more likely to have children who asked questions and so on and so on for millions of years, until it was practically certain that you'd be asking questions as soon as you could talk.
Anyway, so things went for a long long long long time until two of those humans happened to have a child that they named "zodiac". They named him zodiac because his dad was named zodiac and his grandfather was named zodiac, and it seemed like an easy thing to call him, and besides, he was more likely to get love, attention, and inheritance with that name. Zodiac grew up and asked all kinds of questions, being a human question-asker. He asked sensible things like "Where should I eat lunch?" or "Should I get a job with the army to make money to buy lunch?" But he also asked other things, like "Why does chocolate taste like chocolate, instead of like poo?" And of course, he asked "Why am I here?" That was obvious enough, since "why" "am" "I" and "here" are pretty much the commonest words in his language. Zodiac didn't feel like that was a very important question to answer, but alot of other humans sure did. They'd made up a thing ages ago to answer the question "Why did my crops die when I worked so hard, while Steve's crops in the next valley didn't die?" They called the thing "A God" or just "God", and ever since they made him up, they'd been adding things to him as they needed them. They made him the answer to "Why do I feel bad when my mom dies?" and the answer to "Why shouldn't I kill Steve and take his crops?" So it was only natural that "God" should be the answer to "Why am I here?" The people who had God raised their children to think God was the answer to all of those things, and even those children who later didn't believe in God (or in the same God, because there were dozens, all made up for the same purpose) had trouble letting go of the idea that the question "Why am I here?" had an answer other than the one I've been giving, and that the answer was God. Zodiac found all of this to be nonsense.
Yes, nonsense. Stuff that isn't defined like in your story of the universe. Do you think saying stuff that hasn't been determined is any different than saying a whatchamacallit? Do you really think me and Dovina use God as a reason for all these things. We don't respond to the question what's 1+1 by saying wait a minute I've got to ask God first. My point isn't that you should believe in God and this is why. My point is(and this has been Dovina's point from the start) that you can't disprove something that is beyond comprehension. Once someone tries to explicitly define God then their God is open to criticism but if you're just saying I'm not sure what God is exactly but I sense God's existence then it is pretty hard to disprove that. And that is why trying to argue with Dovina and me about if God exists or not is found to be nonsense. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim âGod existsâ and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer.
In short, it's our job to convince you God exists not your job to convince us he doesn't.
Convince me that God is beyond comprehension.
Please refer to your whatchamacallits in your begining of the universe theory for your convincing.
Believing that God exists has never complicated things for me. Maybe my idea of God is more flexible than the one Occam was talking about. He did live in the middle ages after all.
As far as I can understand, you're pretty much saying God's beyond our comprehension because he somehow made all the matter in the universe from nothing. How is that beyond our comprehension? I can comprehend nothing (at least in small amounts) and then I can comprehend a lot of universe. So God made that happen. I just comprehended it.
If that's not what you're talking about, I've no idea where you're at. Sorry.
What you can't comprehend is how scientifically he did it.
Since you're nitpicking my choice of words and not even considering what I'm trying to say I'll try using a different word. Replace comprehension with logical human understanding. You can't comprehend my God. You can only comprehend the meaning of God you've decided on in your head. That is you've decided God is nothing but an imaginary person. That is the only thing you've comprehended. You're using the word God as a whatchamacallit, that's not comprehension.
You don't need to comprehend how scientifically he did it. I can comprehend a God that can make something out of nothing. I can. It's easy. God thinks, let there be light, and there's light. If he thought, let there be a cupcake, there'd be a cupcake. Poof, like on TV. If there's God, he doesn't have to do things scientifically.
Another difference between us is that you SIMPLY DEFINE GOD AS INCOMPREHENSIBLE, and then use that definition to show there is a God who's incomprehensible. Out of all the possible Gods, there are certainly more than a few who are totally comprehensible. The evidence that God is incomprehensible simply isn't there. If I were an eternal being, say, I might decided to create some matter and form it in shapes and put people on them and test them for "good" or "evil" and reward the good ones. Hell, I practically DO -- I have an ant farm. Would I be incomprehensible? No. By Dovina's standard, I wouldn't even be incomprehensible to the ants.
I'm not trying to show you there is a God I'm trying to show you how silly it is to argue that there isn't. It's just as pointless as me arguing with you that God exists. Either you believe one, the other or are waiting for more info to pop up.
The only verifiable answer is I DON'T KNOW. If you were my God you'd be incomprehensible but that's all a matter of preference.
Now that zodiac has stepped aside, allow me to take up the question, âWhy are we here?â which I have asked many times. My childhood answer was simple â because God put us here for His pleasure. Occam says my childhood answer is simple and satisfying, but that it may not be true in view of other answers that science may someday provide. If that is true, there may be no reason for our being here other than the result of nature, however that comes to be known.
For me to ask why I am here is like a chicken asking why it is in a cage, provided with all it needs until its timely death. That answer is in the mind of intelligence the chicken cannot comprehend. Likewise, if we are here for a reason, it is beyond our ability to understand, unless our maker decides to tell.
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.
I did not abuse Occam, I simply mean something different, when I ask, "why are we here?"
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.
I grant you permission to ask. But I see no reason to omit his opoinions.
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.
That's his opinion. Mine is that I may consider reasons for our existence beyond our own minds, beyond psychology.
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.
I do not mean to bring spiritual experience into it either. On that I agree with him.
Oh. Okay. Then what have you been doing your last half-dozen posts?
Most recently, discussing April Fools's Day.
Oh. Well, anyway, consider that a chicken can't ask "Why am I here?" (If it did, its answer would probably be: Because God sucks.")
In other words, ask yourself, "Why was I born a giraffe?" "Why was I born on the inhospitable surface of Saturn?"
A chicken can ask, "Why am I here in this cage, being fed?" with about as much capability of getting an answer as we can ask, "Why am I here?" In either case, even if the one in charge gives an answer, the one in the cage is not likely to understand it.
Sorry, I don't believe a chicken can ask anything.
I knew there was no point. I'm bored. So long.
Look at it this way: Suppose you, human-Dovina, are kept in a cage. Suppose you ask your keeper "Why am I here?" and the keeper says, "Because I'm bigger than you so I'm going to eat you." Are you saying you wouldn't understand that?
Now suppose there is no farmer, or he's in the house watching TV. You ask, "Why am I here?" and you get no answer. Do you think, I'm getting no answer because there is no keeper? Or, I'm getting no answer because the keeper's not around? Or, I'm getting no answer because I'm not saying the question right? Or, I'm getting no answer because I'm really just a nosy hen that likes to ask pointless questions about everything? NO! You think, There IS an answer, but I'm just too obtuse to understand it! O Wise and Powerful Farmer! And so on and so on. That's absurd. If you don't presume to start with that you won't be able to understand an answer, you can find - what? - at least FOUR perfectly reasonable answers to the whole scenario. And I don't start with the assumption that an unknowable God is giving unintelligible answers, so I do find all those answers. And that's why we can't be friends.
Apperantly Occam was a psychologist hundreds of years before his time.
It's funny. If I told an atheist or scientist that I just made an apple appear out of nothing from nowhere into my hand they'd laugh at me but that's what they want you to think the whole universe came from.
lol
I don't think there's anything wrong with Zodiac believing God doesn't exist. I just wish he felt the same way about us believers.
Itâs funny. I can believe something without sound reason. It just seems right, so I go with it. Itâs almost scary sometimes. I base critical decisions on unfounded beliefs. Today, I drove through a green light because I trusted drivers coming at right angle to stop. I did this at least thirty times, believing that people I have never met will do the right thing. I based my life on a belief in what usually happens.
If I had never driven through a green light, I might respond more cautiously. I might stop until no car was approaching on a collision course. Trouble is, we have to keep trucking, most of the time, and only what feels right works in the moment. So, by habit, I suppose, I look at all the reasons for God and for not-God and, finding no clear logical answer, proceed onward with a feeling that has worked on an emotional level. I think sometimes thatâs all we get.
Believing in what usually happens has nothing to do with it. Believing that I don't believe in what usually happens, that I think things happen without "reasons", or the million other things you've suggested about me has everything to do with it.
I know what you're saying and I'm perfectly fine with it. You're saying you'd rather say some force that we don't know about started everything than say it was a being. What I'm saying is that "I don't know" is the only correct way to respond and that the answers shown above are just as likely at this point. So it's anyone's guess. If a tree falls over then you could say the wind blew it over or God had a hand in it. You can disprove the wind theory but even if you prove the wind theory then you still haven't ruled out God having a hand in it. You could say the flap of one specific butterfly wing caused the chain of events which resulted in the wind that blew over the tree. Can you prove it? No. Is it wrong because you can't prove it? No. Is it easier to just stick with what you already know? Sure, but we'd still be like the middle ages if did that. Just don't assume things don't exist because at this point it seems unlikely. Some of the best scientific discoveries seemed unlikely at the time.
No, you can't disprove the God theory for anything. By that line of thinking, every reason for everything is challengeable (ie, you can rule out that wind knocked over the tree, that a bulldozer did, that poor soil quality did) except the reason "Because God did it." Why is that? Because you've defined God as "Unchallengeable Reason for Things".
What's more, it's not impossible to prove that a specific butterfly flapping its wings caused the wind. It's beyond our means to study right now, but each step in the process from butterfly to tree is very small and very basic. That's why the universe works. There is no process that means "butterfly flaps wings and knocks over tree", there are only the tiny, tiny processes of atoms bouncing off each other and so forth. Do not misunderstand: Someday it will definitely be proveable. But all this is beside the point, because what I was really saying is you guys make a lot of silly jibes about me and can't understand what my position as an atheist really involves, choosing instead to talk about how I don't believe in reasons for things, while I can understand your positions just fine. And... well... it hurts, guys...
Sure, this whole Occam thing wasn't an attack on Dovina's beliefs, right? Hurt begets hurt, sir.
Here's someone who said what I'm saying better: http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm A true atheist would not go around saying God doesn't exists, he'd only go as far to say that there is no proof that he does. That means it's our job to convince you he does exist not your job to convince us he doesn't. So stop being such a overzealous atheist.
It was a gift for you, AlChemy, because you were asking about logical ways of dealing with God a couple months ago. I put it on Dovina's poem because that's where I usually put things.
Well I'm flattered. And I've always tried to think scientifically when it comes to things that science can explain but as you already know I think that science has it's limits. Eventually you're just left with guessing or settling with ignoring what you don't know altogether. In your mind I'm guessing science explains everything and so in a way it IS God.
"Thing that explains everything" doesn't mean God to me. "Bearded invisible guy in heaven" means God.
Well that's just a silly idea now ain't it. I wonder what you bearded him with ;).
How do you beard an invisible guy?
Maybe your problem isn't that you find God incomprehensible, it's that you find beards incomprehensible.
Both are incomprehensible, speaking as a hen.
At this moment I have a beard...
I have no idea what that should mean. Maybe I'm God.
At this moment I have a beard
I have no idea what that should mean It's invisible except in a magnifying mirror Fuzzy insipient fur Useful as male nipples To an atheist - ignored
A woman should never talk of having a beard, unless the word "clam" is included.
You're calmbering bearded on some other clambake.
With an invisible beard, silly.
Here Dovina, a real gift. You should enjoy this one:
http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm
I did enjoy it. But I think it's poorly written. That would be alright, but it also takes a certain predefined view of God, which makes your gift kind of like a necktie that somebody gave you, and you didn't like, and now seeing my April Fool's Day birthday has passed, you have giftwrapped it for me. That's ok, it's the thought that counts.
I forgot to say thanks. Thanks.
I just think it's mean spirited to imply to someone they're less smart just because they believe in God. You can always make room for God. Even if it turns out he's just for entertainment. It's like me saying that man you thought was your great grandfather isn't. I have no proof he isn't but you have no real proof(assuming you can't retrieve his DNA) that he is.
I could give a damn what the dude thinks God is or isn't. It's that he points out how silly atheists are to try and disprove it.
Arguing I don't believe in God is like arguing I don't believe in alien abductions on earth. Is it possible there are? Yes. Are there dozens of more likely explanations for such incidences? Sure. Should you rule out alien abductions completely? Hell no.
Yeah, it's the science-touting, logic-claiming atheists who shoot their own feet. You'd think they'd have learned from a thousand years of science that some of the most preposterous-sounding propositions turn true. Raise a glass to the ones who donât throw out the impossible, who go where no one has gone. Raise a glass to God. Tell me if Iâm getting carried away.
The so-called "atheists" on this site aren't the ones denying other possibilities. The "believers" are. They (by which I mean "you") are denying the possibility that there is no God, or that there's a very simplistic, comprehensible one.
When I said comprehensible I meant at this time. I thought you knew that. Although it may never be comprehended. We just don't know. I don't deny the possibility that there is no god and never will. You're the one trying to offer proof that God doesn't exist. That's where this whole thing started. You even said that was what you were doing. I'd be very happy if I found out that God was simple and easily comprehensible. I don't rule out that possibility either but my guess is that if there is something so grande that it could make everything from nothing then it is likely it would be well beyond our grasp to truly understand it.
Why can't there be a God who's comprehensible at this time? Because we don't understand the Big Bang? That's nuts. If you believe in God, you should believe God just created the universe in an instant out of nothing, which is comprehensible if you believe God can do whatever he wants, which you should.
"You're the one trying to offer proof that God doesn't exist." -- As ecargo pointed out, Occam is pretty poor "proof". "You're the one trying to offer proof that God doesn't exist. That's where this whole thing started." -- Why don't you search this page for the words PROOF and PROVE, then try saying that again? "my guess is that if there is something so grande that it could make everything from nothing then it is likely it would be well beyond our grasp to truly understand it." -- Well, that's not my guess. Try this: If you'd never heard of God or omniscient omnipotent deities, and you heard that someone had created the universe in an instant from nothing, would you really automatically assume that that "someone" was beyond comprehension and could do everything else? Why would you? Suppose, to use your example, you heard that a person created an apple out of nothing. Would you believe that person was incomprehensible? Would you believe that person was omnipotent?
There can be one comprehensible at this time. Just not mine. The fact that you want me to believe in the God that you can much more easily debunk is what is nuts.
This is what you said verbatim: "Yes, of course I'm using Occam's razor as an argument against God's existence." Sorry, apperantly you just pasted all that stuff for entertainment and not to prove to me God didn't exist. How did I ever misinterpret that? Your really stuck on my usage of the word comprehend aren't you? I mean to fully understand and observe something in a way that you can precisely define what exactly it is and be sure that there is no mistake.(I'm sure your going to think of wasting time by using God in a sentence or bringing up a Dictionary.com definition). You can comprehend the apple and even the man holding it but you can't comprehend exactly how or why it appeared out of thin air. Sure you could say he told it to appear but that really doesn't explain anything does it. You can have theories but that doesn't mean you understand it exactly, does it? I could try to comprehend what Alaska feels like but does that mean I know for sure what it feels like? No, I can only imagine, but yes imagine is another kind of meaning for comprehension. It's just not the one I was using and I appologize for confusing you.
Hm. I guess I did say that. Sorry. Me now thinks me then was being a snit, but who knows.
I am stuck on your usage of comprehend because that's the only characteristic of God I've been able to grasp out of this conversation. Now I find out that not only is God incomprehensible, but living in Alaska is incomprehensible and by extension *every experience or person that is not your own or yourself* is, in the end, incomprehensible. I'm incomprehensible to you and vice versa, if by comprehend you mean "know to the supremest extent exactly what it is like to be you/me". So being incomprehensible is not a special quality of God. It's a quality of everything. So we're back to square one. Got any more ideas?
Yeah, that's probably the entirely wrong word. I think you know what I was trying to say though. Your the wordsmith, help a fellow Irish American out here. What I mean is God may(or may not) exist on a different plain of reality that we don't quite understand yet in the same kind of way that scientist think there may be undiscovered dimensions. Then again he may be the old guy with a beard and he just chooses remain silent like in my poem and hide outside the confines of science as to allow us complete freedom to naturally come to our own conclusions. Who knows? I say believe what you need or want to believe. Whether you believe in God or not Zodiac, I still think the same about you. I still think your a good person either way.
Sorry, this is in poor taste, but kind of funny:
http://content.todayscartoons.uclick.com
Pardon me for butting in (oh, fuck it--it's a public board), but the two aren't remotely the same. The Big Bang isn't a concept that relies entirely on faith, you know. If you can apply our agreed-upon scientific method to the phenomenon of an apple appearing from nowhere with verifiable results, I wouldn't laugh (well, maybe with delight) and neither would the scientific community. That would take (following description borrowed from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_lab
>>1. Observation and description of the phenomenon. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. *It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.* (my emphasis) There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.<< The Big Bang is a theory supported by the application of the scientific method. As time goes on, we continue to learn things that support that theory. To compare the Big Bang to some unverifiable magical happening (such as that out-of-nowhere apple) ignores the definition of a "theory."
ADDENDUM: A perfectly valid scientific hypothesis might be "An apple can appear from nowhere only under the conditions that were present in Rio de Janiero on Monday April 10, 2006." That would be fine, in my book.
Well, sure--that's just peachy in my book too. Assuming the apple appeared in Rio and not, say, Anchorage.
And, if Rio, still not a theory until it meets certain rigorous criteria, any more than "intelligent design" is a real scientific theory. (But I think I'm preaching to the choir here.) Do you know of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster? Enlivens all discussion of intelligent design. ;) http://www.venganza.org/
Show me how this big bang appears from absolutley nothing and I'll show you the apple trick.
Tell you what--show me ANY objective, observational evidence of your magically appearing apple, any at all (without relying on trickery or sleight of hand), and I'll consider this something more than a flip response.
The Big Bang theory, as I understand it, doesn't posit that the universe appeared from nothing. It says that it emerged from a "dense, hot state"--a primordial atom, if you like. The beauty of it--and what makes it a theory as we define that term--is that it does rest on observational evidence. Take this recent, exciting discovery: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/16 Of course, you can ask what came before that primordial atom and speculate that some grand designer put it into place. But that's not science. It's not a scientific theory. That's faith. That's all I'm saying.
That's what I'm saying. It's just stupid to try to disprove God.
Science can only go back so far and then it's left with nothing but conjecture to work with. At that point, your guess is as good as mine. To ridicule someone for believing it all started from something beyond our understanding at this point is to say your guess is better than their's, which is the epitome of arrogance.
Well, I don't think that's what I'm doing. And I don't have the same interpretation of the Wikipedia article re: Occam's Razor as you do; it does, at the end, state explicitly:
>>The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method . . . however, [he can] be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned with demonstrating that creation is contingent and the Creator is free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences.<< I agree that it's unlikely that one can "disprove" God, and I wouldn't really want to try (seems kind of pointless), but I also don't think there's any verifiable proof of God to BE disproved, not from a scientific standpoint. I have no problem with faith or individual beliefs. (Whatever gets you through the night/it's all right/it's all right.) I do have a problem when people try to use pseudo-science to justify belief in a god--especially systematic attempts, such as those of certain school boards, to put belief in God on an equal scientific footing as theories that meet the accepted rigors of the scientific process. Faith is not science. God is not a theory in the accepted meaning of that term. Outside of that, I don't much care what people believe, as long as it's not a basis for harming others. Me, why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Your take is basically my take on Ockham. I think he's just saying let's use what we know and not what we think we know in science. I have no beaf with that. It's using the word simple to describe concise or verifiable things that I don't like about his theory. I mean what's simpler than saying God did it?
Zodiac is the one trying to use it as proof that God doesn't exist.
Actually, I took it to mean the opposite--the article points out (rightly, I think) that Occam's Razor is a good argument *against* the existence of God because, when boiled down to the essentials, God is a outlier, not an essential. God "introduces a truly new, unrelated element to the explanatory system. Occam's Razor can shave away the God concept without affecting any of the basic concepts of science. If we try to cut away evolution theory, we have to shave away an enormous amount of knowledge about the world, as evolution theory is just a name for the patterns basic processes produce."
Occam's Razor is just a tool, a way of thinking, though. It doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything. It does help to provide clarity in thinking when dealing with complex systems and theories though. So much for working today. Yikes.
To clarify--I just meant, originally, that I didn't see the Occam article as an attack, per se, on anyone's faith. I do think it effectively presents the concept of God as "nonessential" to our understanding of reality/evolution/etc.
only if science encompasses everything then can you eliminate God from the equation. That hasn't and most likely will never be shown.
I disagree. I don't think I need to add God to explain the unknown. It's unknown, not necessarily unknowable. I have great faith in human ingenuity to comprehend what, for now, is incomprehensible--assuming we survive ourselves. Sure, we'd probably never understand or prove EVERYTHING there is to know about reality, but I, personally, feel no need to add some divine all-knowing being to the mix just because *we* don't know everything.
On that point, we'll just have to disagree. Amiably, of course. ;) Have a good night.
"I have great faith in human ingenuity to comprehend.": Isn't that a bit like a rooster strutting about the henhouse, obviously thinking he's the smartest thing going, and will soon have all the perplexities of his surroundings figured out? I'm not calling your intelligence that of a rooster. It just seems that faith in human ability has a parallel in animal's faith in their abilities.
I am literally sneakers-on-out-the-door, so quickly: hell yes. As far as we know, we are the smartest thing going. "Will soon have"? I never said that. But we've made astonishing leaps in our understanding of our surroundings. I see no reason why those leaps won't continue, particularly as we continue to supplement our abilities with the speed and ability to address complexity of computers and the like. Arrogant? Maybe. But no more arrogant, in my view, than creating a God in our image, as many seem (to me) to do.
And I don't know that animals have faith in the abilities of their species, so I don't think the analogy is all that accurate. 'til tomorrow. Have a good evening.
You already have the idea that we're the rooster and there's something smarter than the rooster, so the comparison seems perfectly reasonable. Try -- just try -- imagining that there is nothing smarter than the rooster. I'm not trying to convince anyone that there's no God, just trying to get you to imagine the alternative. I bet you can't.
In other words, I imagine if there's a God walking around Heaven, he's thinking, I know the answers to everything. Would you tell HIM He's just a rooster?
I didn't say that. I said it's the only way to illiminate god from the equation(as in the possibility that God exists.) God is obviously not scientifically testable so does not need to be in a scientific equation but if he is I'm sure you'd need to know everything before you could make a perfect conclusion. Atoms have always been on earth but until someone discovered them, in human's minds they didn't exist. Although there were theories about them and what they do long before they were discovered. So maybe some day we'll have all the answers and then we can say for sure that God does or does not exist. Until then we're just guessing like they once did about atoms. Most likely niether of us will be here when everything is found out so why not fill in the gaps for now with an indefinite being like God and in doing so cover your ass just in case he really does exist. If your idea of God interferes with the logical process then in my mind it's not God you're thinking of.
;) Sleep tight.
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.
"Dovina's smugness": I suppose it's because I used a smug rooster for comparison, and called myself a hen. Perhaps I should have explained that they are animals incapable of human reasoning, and that I used them as metaphors for possible incapabilities of humans. We just might be incapable of certain undefined mental processes that go beyond our treasured logical abilities. Smug? - Yes, I suppose it is in an unknown way.
You should know better than to use poetics in an argument on a poetry site Dovina, SHEEESH! ;D
"Yeah, it's the science-touting, logic-claiming atheists who shoot their own feet. You'd think they'd have learned from a thousand years of science that some of the most preposterous-sounding propositions turn true. Raise a glass to the ones who donât throw out the impossible, who go where no one has gone."
Oh, that's what you meant. You left off the kicker line of my comment to Alchemy: "Raise a glass to God. Tell me if Iâm getting carried away." Well, I was getting carried away! I would not have said that directly to you. It was a kind of barroom cheer for the home team. Sorry that it came accross smug. It is admittedly exaggerated.
Your arguments have not been condescending or smug, which I appreciate. I think you place too much faith in human logic, but that's an acedemic proposition, not a criticism.
Once again, out the door (gorgeous here and a beach run is calling), but before I go--yeah, I should have taken it in context. Humor is sometimes hard to convey in these little boxes and this awful font. ;) So, pax. Seriously. And I apologize for calling you smug--that was insulting.
This discussion--the scope of my part in it--is deceptive. I only place so much "faith" in logic, though I do think our progress in science is amazing. FWIW, I do believe in the importance of a spiritual life, God or no God, and I don't think that's an area that can be comprehended entirely on a logical basis. But that's a discussion for another day. ;) Have a good evening.
Say what ever you want. It's your poem and all that's written beneath it is your property. You can delete it or keep it, it's at your mercy.
I am god of a vast universe of comments, you say. It is my property because I created the cell from which it all evolved. I can look upon my creation as God did in the time of Noah, carry off what I think is good, and bring a flood to destroy the rest. Or I can let it ride, as God appears to have done for the last few thousand years. But, like God, I began this menagerie for my pleasure, and I still have faith in that possibility. In spite of the nonsense and backbiting here in my little kingdom, I still choose to let it ride.
Funny, you should mention it in this way. This evening, when the clock sounds, I plan to post something along these very lines.
You may want to attach a disclaimer to avoid some logicians calling you silly.
I get the impression that you are not thrilled with the outcome of this whole discussion about God. It has seen repeatition of the same ideas over and over with little in the way of resolution. I can say in its favor that the parties are still on speaking terms, and maybe each has clarified in his/her mind the ideas that he/she came with. That makes it more productive than most arguments about the existence of God. Usually, it ends in blood and/or tears, and everybody goes away hating each other.
The logicians may call me silly if they want. I believe my position is as logical as theirs. They did come down heavy handedly in this discussion, and did so with what seemed to me as mostly rewordings of the same arguments. But I think that ecargo, at least, shows a little more openness. So, no flood today.
I have and had no expectations for the outcome of this whole discussion about God. I'm just tired of everyone trying to change each others minds about it. My only purpose for getting involved was to point out that trying to change our minds on this is a waste of time and to continue to do it is down right badgering. If I've ever while unprovoked, badgered one of them directly about their decision to be atheists my sincerest appologies are offered.
May the whole thing rest in peace. Dust to dust. Amen.
I could tell you that I think your great-great-great grandfather became after he died a gay ghost butt pirate and that he is the real origin of the aids virus or at least the equivilant of that. Is there a possibility it's true? sure. Am I insulting you, your intelligence and your lineage. Sure looks it. Your doing the same thing as the people who insult people who believe that aliens exist somewhere. What about mind reading? Does that exist in your book or do you compare them to pirate ghosts and pixie fairies too. I see why you believe so much in -=Dark Angel=-, you certainly carry his mentality towards others beliefs. I don't "define" God as everything that is unknowable. I've only said that maybe his proof of existence hasn't been discovered yet. Kinda like alien's proof of existence. Why do you keep twisting what I'm saying and spitting it back at me as the same insultive, patronizing rhetoric. I don't assume anything about it. If it turns out to be proved that God doesn't exist or if it turns out he looks like the God from South Park cartoons I won't Keel over from shock. What you guys did and are doing to Dovina and me is malicious and uncalled for. It's worse than those Jahova's Witnesses knocking at your door and then not going away when you ask them to(that's the only thing I regarded as silly). I've defended you guys when the preachers started preaching in your comment boxes under your poems and I'll defend Dovina's right to not be attacked for her belief system also. My God this isn't even a religious poem. I know what Occam's Razor is. I already know your response: "Yeah but what me and Zodiac are saying is entirely logical".
My response: Thanks for the insult. p.s. I still admire you greatly. ;-D
Wow. Look, I think we are really talking at cross purposes. In no way did I attack anyone's beliefs. Should I accuse you of attacking my beliefs for insisting on the possibility of God? Of course not. I don't think I ever said categorically "there is no God." I may have said that I don't believe in God, but so? That's an attack on your belief?
My participation in this discussion was limited--or so I thought--to a fairly academic discussion of the concept of God *as it relates to* (1) the scientific method (which is how I got into this in the first place--well, it started, as things will, with an apple) and (2) Occam's Razor. That's it. I don't think logic is the only way to consider/think about/"experience" (if you like) God. People approach it many different ways. This was the way *I* was approaching it. At almost every step, I tried to stress that *I* don't need to add God to *my* world view and that *for me, personally* it was unessential, but I understood that, for you, it was not. Comparing belief in God to belief in pirate ghosts and unicorns was a reflection of *my* thought processes, not yours, since I find them to be possible but not, in *MY* worldview, particularly probable (and, also, I though ghost pirates were kind of funny). It was a response to a statement you made somewhere about things existing in other dimensions or whatever. If I misinterpreted what you said about God being beyond comprehension to mean that God was "that which is unknowable" it was because I misunderstood what you meant--it was not intended to "twist your words and spit them back at you." None of it meant as a slam, and I'm at a loss as to why you would take it that way. If I were to compare belief in God to belief in aliens, would you have taken that as a slam? Just because I don't believe in aliens, particularly, doesn't mean I'm insulting everyone that does. Nor does the mere discussion of belief and disbelief--or I didn't think it did, anyway. I never claimed any insider knowledge. I don't think I was malicious or insulting or patronizing, and if I came off that way, well, sorry about that. If you read what I actually said, I don't think there's much basis for your accusations--but whatever. I don't know how I can make it clearer that my statements were narrow in scope (the concept of God vis a vis logic/Occam's Razor) and that I wasn't claiming any superior knowledge, just having what I thought was a friendly discussion about God and logic. I guess I was wrong. No hard feelings.
An unprovoked statement against someone's belief directed at them is an attack on their beliefs. No one originally directed any statements to you until you directed statements to them.
To say the ghost pirate thing is considered a joke is to say you consider God a joke as you were comparing the two and by doing so calling me and Dovina's beliefs a joke. Whether that was your intention or not that's what you did and that is a statement against our beliefs. Admit it, you think me and Dovina are being silly for believing in God. Go ahead, I don't mind. What I do mind is coming to someone unprovoked and calling them silly. This started as a "gift" to me from Zodiac. I chose to defend my point of view as this "gift" was intended as an argument against my and Dovina's beliefs. I have that right. I was prevoked. To "joke" with someone about their belief system is just as rude as joking about someone's ancestry whether you intended it or not. I am fine with God being unessential to you. I'm even fine with people thinking God doesn't exist or even if they think God's a joke so long as they don't feel the need to go pissing on my parade. It's like your going up to a gay person saying I understand you want to be gay and that gayness can exist but gayness is silly because sex is intended for reproduction and gay sex can't do that so it's totally illogical to be gay. Then you show them by comparing them to a dog fucking a stuffed animal. If you read the actual things I've said you'd see that my views aren't that far off from yours.
Whatever. This is insane. It's insane to still be reading this.
To anyone who has been "converted" to atheism by anything I've said here: I'm horrified, and truly sorry. To AlChemy: Whatever. If you're reduced to calling opposing viewpoints "unprovoked attacks" you've only got yourself to answer to now. Hey, and here's another "attack": -=Dark_Angel=- had you pegged from day one. Your problem isn't that you believe in God (who in his right mind could care whether you did or not?) It's that you believe in something you couldn't pick out of a lineup. You cannot name one identifying, particular characteristic of the God you believe in. Does someone want to call that my 'nonbeliever's idiotic need for definitions'? Fine. I won't be here to hear it.
My point has been that this has been insane from the getgo.
To Zodiac: I was calling making fun of someone's beliefs an attack on their beliefs. If you must nitpick and say it's not technically an attack then fine but it's still done in bad taste. Is an argument not a verbal fight? If someone comes up to you and starts a fight with you and you've done nothing to provoke them is that not an unprovoked attack? If someone starts arguing against your beliefs directly to you before you've done anything to provoke them is that not an unprovoked verbal attack? Your the one with the problem. I've got no problem with you being an atheist. I've never gone to any atheist's poem and tried to start arguments about the existence of God. If I did I was surely being a twit that day and my appologies would be automatic. I CAN say something about God. God is the creator of all things and only when we know all things can we truly understand the glory of God completely. But nooo, you want me to give him a little fuzzy beard and dress him like Santa don't you? 'Cause then it's much easier to make fun of. Your just mad because I won't offer a God made of flesh to you so you can verbally crucify him. Fine, here you go, I believe Jesus is the son of God. I hope you'll feel better when you've proven to me what a fool I've been for believing. Maybe I was being a little harsh on ecargo but how many times must I listen to my beliefs be compared to satirical images like purple living marshmellows driving Pintos on Saturn before I decide I'm officially offended. Here's an opposing viewpoint: You walking down a street in Alaska and some guy you and your wife walked by at the store comes up to you and say's "Hey fella, Your wife is a slut. I've read this book that says all women that walk like that are sluts." Do you still think an opposing viewpoint can't in someway be an attack when not provoked. But I guess I was asking for it because some time way way back I must have mentioned something about a logical approach to God's existence. It's as if you were in a bar 2 years earlier and asked everyone if any of them knew your wife in any way and one of them was the guy who later came and said she was a slut. Had you said "This is insane" let's just forget about it earlier I would have agreed and this wouldn't have gone this far. Really, we should agree to never talk about our religious beliefs to each other again.
ps. It probably wouldn't have bothered me so much if I didn't have such admiration for you. So cut a lesser genius some slack will ya.
Have a happy Easter Z.- and if Easter's not your thing then have a happy Sunday.
Whatever, dude. It's a public board, so I don't need anyone's permission to talk about any topic, no matter who brought it up or who it's directed to. You said something I considered bullshit originally, so I cried bullshit--very politely too. I didn't realize you were so sensitive or I wouldn't have bothered to try to have a rational discussion with you. In retrospect, it was kind of like having a conversation with someone who, instead of listening to what one is actually saying, just thinks about what they're going to say next. I couldn't give a shit what you believe--that was never the point, and the idea of trying to convert you in some way or mock your beliefs bores me silly. I'll let you go back to fighting the War Against Christmas and all the rest of it. Have fun.
You did it so politely, yet you admit to A) Fucking with my head and B) comparing my beliefs to a joke. Just because you word things politely doesn't mean what you're really saying is polite.
Yes, you can say whatever you want. That doesn't mean it makes you any less of a jerk if you're saying something hurtful. But I'm assuming it wasn't intentional. That still doesn't make it right. Yes I'm being sensitive, because you guys just won't let up! All I've been trying to do is defend my beliefs. I didn't start this enormous cluster of a debate and my message has been constant- "Don't bother arguing with us, we are blinded by faith." You've worn me down to the point where I'm fed up with constantly hearing how illogical God is. I hate the fact that we ever got to this point(and I admit I played a part in us getting there) but for the love of God(or whatever) let's stop talking about religion and atheism from now on. Maybe I've taken things to heart a little more than usual because I like and admire you and Zodiac so much.
i think this fits in here:
"Donsen's Law: The specialist learns more and more about less and less until, finally, he knows everything about nothing; whereas the generalist learns less and less about more and more until, finally, he knows nothing about everything." Always liked that one... :P
I am curious to see whether making verses 2-5 rhyme in a plodding, marching kind of way would add to the piece
I want the poem to march along with the pounding waves, but I don't want it to rhyme. I think rhyming could give it a sing-song sound, not in keeping with a battle. Thanks for the comment though.
True
To go back to Occam for a minute:
This morning, if you are like most people, you woke up and took a piss. Why did you take a piss? The simplest explanation is that your bladder filled up while you slept with liquids you'd drunk the night before. Yes, you could also say that God made you piss, and that could be true. But the first explanation makes sense, is predictable, and follows certain basic rules, such as that liquids can't just disappear. The God explanation requires, yes, assumptions. These are: 1. God exists, 2. God has the power to make you piss, and 3. God is interested in whether or not you piss. To say the least. None of these is certain or even proveable, WHETHER OR NOT they're true. Occam says that, for the purposes of studying and predicting results, the God-made-me-piss explanation is unnecessary, unuseful (except for getting into Heaven, yes), and even harmful if, for example, you're trying to predict when you're going to need to piss and ignoring the properties of full bladders. This is THE ONLY THING OCCAM'S RAZOR SAYS. Everything else that has been suggested about Occam here is nonsense.
I don't think like that. So in that way I agree with Occam. Had you not said: "Yes, of course I'm using Occam's razor as an argument against God's existence." we wouldn't be having this (and I agree it's) nonsensical conversation. I also don't care for the way he uses the word simple.
337 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now memory moved . . ." -- nice. Maybe hint earlier that the rock was winning? Is that what you were getting at with "strength of how it was"? "Going at it still" seems a little slangy and imprecise.
"Gentle rolls came in from far"--"in from far" seems a little awkward. "as recollection told"--not sure about "told" and if the rolls are meeting the shore, you need a comma after "told." Also, "kept on"--in both places--doesn't really need "on"--it's just a filler word. "Greed" seems to come out of no where. I like the ending a lot, though I think "little bits" could be replaced with something stronger.
Anyway, nits and some fuzzy language aside, cool poeme.
In Stanza 2, âhow it wasâ refers to the old solid cliff, standing obstinately against young belligerent motion of the sea. But I see your point, and have changed it in the edit. I think the new wording also shows that the rock was winning.
In Stanza 4, Iâve changed, âNow memory moved, met solid desire / the ocean going at it still.â to âNow memory moved, met solid desire / armies under different flags.â I think that improves the precision of the changing image as the narrator ages.
In Stanza 6, âgreedâ refers back to âsolid desire,â which is a mild form of greed perhaps. The idea is that memory was winning over the strong desires of younger times. I have changed âgreedâ to âneed,â to make it less jarring. Also, Iâve changed âlittle bitsâ to painful bitsâ â stronger, I think.