Free verse № 141897
The Battle of Fort Bragg
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.
142 comments
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.
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.
Bloody Tea was the end of us lol.
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. :)
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.
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
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.
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.
http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.j
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.
#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.
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.
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?
Here's a better site for his theory:http://www.paul-almond.com/Occams
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.
In short, it's our job to convince you God exists not your job to convince us he doesn't.
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.
If that's not what you're talking about, I've no idea where you're at. Sorry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now carry on with your nonsense.
In other words, ask yourself, "Why was I born a giraffe?" "Why was I born on the inhospitable surface of Saturn?"
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.
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.
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...
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.
I have no idea what that should mean.
Maybe I'm God.
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
http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm
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.
"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?
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.
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?
http://content.todayscartoons.uclick.com
>>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."
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/
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.
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.
>>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.
Zodiac is the one trying to use it as proof that God doesn't exist.
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.
On that point, we'll just have to disagree. Amiably, of course. ;) Have a good night.
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.
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?
;) Sleep tight.
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.
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.
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.
Funny, you should mention it in this way. This evening, when the clock sounds, I plan to post something along these very lines.
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.
My response: Thanks for the insult.
p.s. I still admire you greatly. ;-D
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.
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.
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.
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.
Have a happy Easter Z.-
and if Easter's not your thing then have a happy Sunday.
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.
"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
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.
Log in to add a comment.