# Religion: The views of an agnostic



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

I became an atheist in high school when I was expelled because I used to ask too many questions in the class of Religion. It was beyond my understanding and tolerance, the refusal of the teacher to answer any of my questions in a logical way.

I remained an atheist for a number of years during which I had the chance to study many books considered holy by believers. The study on one hand enhanced my atheism but on the other hand helped me become who I ended up being. The philosophy in those books is fascinating and in many cases it is the base of a properly defined set of principles/values. Needless to say that those principles are an amalgam of the philosophies of the books of many religions, not only my "own" (Greek Orthodoxy).

For many years I was a passionate debater of the Religion Vs Science subject, debating that science has or will have the answers to all questions while religion is all manmade fantasies / delusions that have no logic whatsoever.

Around my early thirties, when I "levelled up" from immaturity to maturity with my set of principles/values almost complete and based on logic and logic alone, I had to resolve the Religion Vs Science matter. What occurred to me was that Science was just another form of Religion since we (atheists) believe in whatever Scientists tell us, which is exactly what happens with Religion. Believers believe in whatever their Priests (or their holy books) tell them. Without a proof. Without personal knowledge. Without evidence. So, was I another form of a believer? The solution to this conundrum came when I realized the major difference between Science and Religion: Science is _not_ afraid to admit its mistakes. Religion, on the other hand, is dogmatic and stubbornly defends the indefensible for one simple reason: Admitting any part of a Religion to be false will result in total collapse of it.

That was about the time that I, as a true scientist, changed from an atheist to an agnostic. To be an atheist (assertively) one has to have the proof that the deity does not exist. That simply cannot happen.

That was also about the time that I realized that religious people (believers) can be split into four main categories:

A1. The ones who due to personal experiences or epiphanies are convinced that God is a reality and are not based on what has been given to them by others (verbally or in writing).

A. The ones who have Religion as their support system to cope with the unknown, whatever than might be, and the problems of their lives, small or not so small ones. They keep to themselves and respect other people's beliefs and decisions without interfering with them.  I decided that I will not debate with this group of people, ever again for a simple reason: I had nothing to give them in return to fill the vacuum created by taking away their support system. To leave a person without a support system would be inhumane.

B. The ones who have Religion as their support system to cope with the unknown but also try to impose their beliefs on other people. Either by directly threatening, bullying, demonstrating etc. or by indirectly pressing the laws of the country towards their belief system. These people do not respect the individuality of every human being and their rights. They believe that their beliefs are the correct ones and they will try to impose them in any way they can on anyone not following them. These are the fanatics of a religion. I want, here, to make a reference to those who believe that their religion (or their denomination) is the correct one and it should dominate the world. It is absurd to believe that just because one happened to be born in a family following religion A would make that religion the correct one. Without thinking that if they were born in a family following religion B they would say the exact same words but for a different religion!

C. The ones who have Religion to use for their own benefit and gain, usually greed, or to control the behavior of the masses. This is the most dangerous of the three groups because usually they have the power to affect the common opinion or consensus view and have the ability to cause major good or evil (depending on the nature or the person).

Groups B and C will find me in their way for I cannot tolerate the violation of anyone's rights because of a persons beliefs or religion. The actions of each person, provided that they do not violate the rights of another, should not be approved by anybody else.

Would we better off without religion? I don't think so. But I definitely think that we would be better of without groups B and C.


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 3, 2021)

I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".

Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.

A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 3, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".
> 
> Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.
> 
> A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.


I'm also an atheist. While I agree with Murrmurr that literally atheism does not mean  "proof' of non-existence of a deity". It does seem to imply that there is some justification for not believing in a deity. If many , around you, believe in a deity, you do have to have a reason not to believe.
And a pet opinion is that man has an innate "moral" code. You don't have to read it in a book how to feel when someone steals from you, disrespects you, or does harm to you. And conversely, you know instinctively that doing  those activities are not welcome. The concept of "mine' and  "yours" is a common animal trait.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 3, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.


I take the view that our morals and laws have evolved to support our civilization, without them no civilization.  Religion helps people understand and live by the morals, but I don't believe religion is the source of morals.  

Like you I suspect all peoples, including the untouched tribes have morals, but likely different from ours.


CAKCy said:


> To be an atheist (assertively) one has to have the proof that the deity does not exist.


I agree with Mur on this one, I don't see the necessity of proof, just the belief.  And as you know proving a negative like this is not possible.


CAKCy said:


> Admitting any part of a Religion to be false will result in total collapse of it.


I know religions are slow to admit to things and change, but there are examples of it over time.  The best examples I can think of right now are the Mormons.  They once supported polygamy and no longer do.  They also once did not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and that has changed.  I am sure there are other examples in many religions.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Sep 3, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I take the view that our morals and laws have evolved to support our civilization, without them no civilization.  Religion helps people understand and live by the morals, but I don't believe religion is the source of morals.
> 
> Like you I suspect all peoples, including the untouched tribes have morals, but likely different from ours.
> 
> ...


I never knew there were Black Mormons...never saw or heard of any examples of such..until my son's ex (my Honorary Daughter) and their children started attending a Mormon church in town and became baptized as Mormons. My HD often hosted their Bible studies at her house. What was funny to me is that the "elders" were young men in their 20's! Not like the churches I attended back in the day.  My son and I are Muslim. There has never been a problem with his children accepting a different faith.

Re the OP:  This is an interesting thread which I will have to take time to digest, then maybe I'll comment further.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 3, 2021)

OneEyedDiva said:


> I never knew there were Black Mormons...


Eldridge Cleaver was one of the more famous.  He converted and was a pretty outspoken about it for a while.  I heard him speak once, when he was a practicing Mormon, an interesting guy to say the least.​


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 3, 2021)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I'm also an atheist. While I agree with Murrmurr that literally atheism does not mean  "proof' of non-existence of a deity". It does seem to imply that there is some justification for not believing in a deity. If many around you believe in a deity, you do have to have a reason not to believe.


I don't see how the word Atheist implies justification for...um...for itself. Or, I mean, I don't see how the word Atheist implies justification for atheism. And I don't think you _have to_ have a reason not to believe in a deity while everyone else does believe. What reason could there be other than a person simply rejecting the idea of a deity or deities? Is there some compelling reason other than a person just saying it's hogwash, I don't believe it?


----------



## Irwin (Sep 3, 2021)

I wasn't exposed to any religion growing up. I came from a non-religious Jewish family that celebrated Christmas and lit a menorah on Hanukkah, but there no prayers or anything like that. They were just secular holidays to us. 

My relatives were more traditional Jews. My cousins all had bar mitzvah rituals (I didn't have any female cousins). I visited them a few times and it was somewhat alluring in that it seemed like a stabilizing practice that brought the family together. They were a close knit family, and still are. The three brothers are successful and with families of their own. One's a doctor, one's a lawyer, and one's in finance.

I never went had a bar mitzvah ceremony, for which I've always kind of resented my parents, but they didn't have the resources I guess. I don't remember there even being a synagogue in the little town where I grew up, but I'm sure there were some in the bigger cities nearby. It was New York, after all.

My first real exposure to religion was watching the demonic possession horror movies during the '70s, which scared the hell out of me. Until my late 30s, I couldn't go into a church without getting freaked out. I'd get this weird feeling that people were going to get possessed and start doing weird stuff.  

I occasionally look at various theories about how Jesus became the messiah. One theory is that the Romans created the story of a passive, peace-loving Jesus to subdue and control the Jews, who were the Roman's toughest opponent. Many books have been written promoting that theory including _Caesar's Messiah_, by Joseph Atwill. It's interesting and plausible. I watched the documentary. Reading the book is too much of a commitment for me since it doesn't matter that much to me.


----------



## raybar (Sep 3, 2021)

My reason for not believing is the complete lack of evidence (to my knowledge) that there exists a god.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 3, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".
> 
> Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.
> 
> A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.



Even non-human animals have a moral code. Working together for the common good has evolutionary benefits that helped us survive as species.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 3, 2021)

raybar said:


> My reason for not believing is the complete lack of evidence (to my knowledge) that there exists a god.


That and the lack of evidence that there is not a God (or Gods) is what makes me feel mostly agnostic.


----------



## mellowyellow (Sep 3, 2021)

HILLSONG Church rakes in *$100 million a year* from its tax-exempt Australian operations as its weekly flock of 34,000 supporters hands over their hard-earned cash. The church that started in suburban Sydney in the 1980s has expanded to 15 countries and now boasts an A-list of celebrity followers and “rock star” pastors.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 3, 2021)

raybar said:


> My reason for not believing is the complete lack of evidence (to my knowledge) that there exists a god.


Or, your very existence (and mine) is clear evidence that God does exist.


----------



## bingo (Sep 3, 2021)

too much deep  thinking...
simplicity  ...just enjoy  every  moment


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".
> 
> Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.
> 
> A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.



Thank you for your input!

When a statement is assertive, the one making the statement has to present the evidence of one's assertion. On the other hand when there is a questioning of an assertive statement one does not have such a role to play.

The statement "There is no god" is an assertive statement.
The statement "There is no proof that there is a god" is a questioning of the assertive statement "There is a god". 
As a scientist and having no evidence to prove my hypotheses that "There is no god" I have to fall back to agnosticism questioning those who (without evidence) assert that there is one.

With all due respect, the idea that morals are based on religion is wrong. There have been times when religion was not a part of the game (for instance when Sun was considered to be a deity) yet morals existed as a common understanding and agreement of what a society needed. (That's why morals are so volatile. Because times change, society changes and along with it, its morals)


----------



## Irwin (Sep 3, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> That and the lack of evidence that there is not a God (or Gods) is what makes me feel mostly agnostic.


There is also no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Does that prove anything? I don't think so.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I agree with Mur on this one, I don't see the necessity of proof, just the belief. And as you know proving a negative like this is not possible.



Thank you for your comments!

We are moving into the semantics of a debate. "There is no god" is slightly different from "There is no proof that god exists"



Alligatorob said:


> I know religions are slow to admit to things and change, but there are examples of it over time. The best examples I can think of right now are the Mormons. They once supported polygamy and no longer do. They also once did not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and that has changed. I am sure there are other examples in many religions.



That happens when people take all the burden of the change. Religion is dogmatic and as such it doesn't change. People blame themselves for "interpreting wrongly" what was given to them and effect the change without admitting that their religion was, until yesterday, wrong.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

OneEyedDiva said:


> Re the OP: This is an interesting thread which I will have to take time to digest, then maybe I'll comment further.



I will look forward to your comments!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I wasn't exposed to any religion growing up. I came from a non-religious Jewish family that celebrated Christmas and lit a menorah on Hanukkah, but there no prayers or anything like that. They were just secular holidays to us.



That's the best thing (re religion) that can happen to a child. The brainwashing of children by their parents about their (the parents') religion is appalling. Let the child grow up, develop a brain and critical thinking and then they will decide (based on their knowledge and personal experiences) if there is a reason to believe and what to believe in.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

raybar said:


> My reason for not believing is the complete lack of evidence (to my knowledge) that there exists a god.



You spoke like a true scientist!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

mellowyellow said:


> View attachment 181869
> HILLSONG Church rakes in *$100 million a year* from its tax-exempt Australian operations as its weekly flock of 34,000 supporters hands over their hard-earned cash. The church that started in suburban Sydney in the 1980s has expanded to 15 countries and now boasts an A-list of celebrity followers and “rock star” pastors.



Thank you for your input.

They are Group C much?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Or, your very existence (and mine) is clear evidence that God does exist.



There's quite a leap there. How does one's existence is evidence that God exists? Where's the logic in this statement?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

bingo said:


> too much deep  thinking...
> simplicity  ...just enjoy  every  moment



The brain should not be allowed to relax. 
It's a "use it or lose it" game


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 3, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> .... There have been times when religion was not a part of the game ... yet morals existed as a common understanding and agreement of what a society needed.


Yes, that was my argument. And my friend conceded that I _might_ have made a valid point.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 3, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> Yes, that was my argument. And my friend conceded that I _might_ have made a valid point.


At least you got a "might"!


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> There's quite a leap there. How does one's existence is evidence that God exists? Where's the logic in this statement?


No "leap" required. Life would not exist without God.  And human logic is not sufficient to explain God.  Why do you limit the idea of God to what your logic can explain?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> No "leap" required. Life would not exist without God.  And human logic is not sufficient to explain God.  Why do you limit the idea of God to what your logic can explain?



If human logic is not sufficient to explain God then why is human logic a necessity to explain life without God's presence?


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> If human logic is not sufficient to explain God then why is human logic a necessity to explain life without God's presence?


Sorry, but no.  There is no life without God's presence.  Your belief in God or your "logic" is not a requirement for his presence.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Sorry, but no.  There is no life without God's presence.  Your belief in God or your "logic" is not a requirement for his presence.



There is no life without God's presence says who?


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> There is no life without God's presence says who?


And who says there is life without God's presence?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> And who says there is life without God's presence?



Answering a question with a question. Interesting.

This is what Science hypothesizes based on available evidence. Since there is no proof for the opposite I choose to trust Science for a single reason: Science will admit the invalidity of any hypothesis if there's evidence available disproving such a hypothesis. Religion will not.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Answering a question with a question. Interesting.
> 
> This is what Science hypothesizes based on available evidence. Since there is no proof for the opposite I choose to trust Science for a single reason: Science will admit the invalidity of any hypothesis if there's evidence available disproving such a hypothesis. Religion will not.


My question is a valid as yours, and your refusal to answer says it all.  And God transcends science.  Again, you try to limit God to your human understanding, but God is not thusly limited.

We're done here.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> My question is a valid as yours, and your refusal to answer says it all.  And God transcends science.  Again, you try to limit God to your human understanding, but God is not thusly limited.
> 
> We're done here.



Refusal to answer? I _have _answered! (But you didn't. Instead you posed another question.)

God transcends science. Says who?

I try to limit God to my human understanding? What I don't understand is how you (and other believers) can question anything based on your human understanding except when you deal with God. You throw a "God transcends science" or a "God cannot be explained with human logic" and you think you can get away with it.

Of course we are done here. Logic is a prerequisite for a debate! Otherwise one is free to claim just about anything!


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> There is no life without God's presence says who?


 and


Buckeye said:


> And who says there is life without God's presence?


The crux of the debate!  

I think the answer is no one can answer either question based on hard facts.  And maybe never will.  Its a question of what you decide to believe, a supernatural explanation or the conviction that there is a fact based answer we don't yet fully understand.  

I tend to come down on the side of science, but can understand why others do not.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I think the answer is no one can answer either question based on hard facts.  And maybe never will.  Its a question of what you decide to believe, a supernatural explanation or the conviction that there is a fact based answer we don't yet fully understand.
> 
> I tend to come down on the side of science, but can understand why others do not.



As I have already answered to @Buckeye: "This is what Science hypothesizes based on available evidence. Since there is no proof for the opposite I choose to trust Science for a single reason: Science will admit the invalidity of any hypothesis if there's evidence available disproving such a hypothesis. Religion will not."


----------



## Shero (Sep 4, 2021)

“I believe in everything until it’s disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it’s in your mind. Who’s to say that dreams and nightmares aren’t as real as the here and now?” _(John Lennon_)


Science and logic does nothing for man spiritually, one needs faith to make dreams come true (_Shero_)


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it’s in your mind.


Good point, in many ways what exists in one's mind is all that really matters.  I also believe in the existence of "fairies, the myths, dragons", I believe they are real and powerful concepts.  They have long persisted in human history.  Not so sure about their physical existence though.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> “I believe in everything until it’s disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it’s in your mind. Who’s to say that dreams and nightmares aren’t as real as the here and now?” _(John Lennon_)
> 
> 
> Science and logic does nothing for man spiritually, one needs faith to make dreams come true (_Shero_)



With all due respect I will disagree with both Lennon and you, my friend. Dreams based on reality do not need faith for one to make them come true. They require hard work and focusing. 

Re spiritualism... my life is governed by philosophy which helps me work on my morals/principles/values.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Refusal to answer? I _have _answered! (But you didn't. Instead you posed another question.)
> 
> God transcends science. Says who?
> 
> ...


Science has no proof that God does not exist, nor can Science prove that God does exist.  You know that.  So, no you have not answered my question.  I see you claiming God does not exist, because your "logic" tells you so.  Sorry, but human logic is not capable of answering everything, and your refusal to see that tells me all I need to know.

And I will say again that the mere presence of life is proof of God's existence.  The end.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I also believe in the existence of "fairies, the myths, dragons"





Alligatorob said:


> Not so sure about their physical existence though.



What exactly do you mean by "existence"?


----------



## Shero (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> With all due respect I will disagree with both Lennon and you, my friend. Dreams based on reality do not need faith for one to make them come true. They require hard work and focusing.
> 
> Re spiritualism... my life is governed by philosophy which helps me work on my morals/principles/values.




"If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales.

If you want them to be very intelligent, read them more fairy tales."

_*(Albert Einstein).*_


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Science has no proof that God does not exist, nor can Science prove that God does exist.  You know that.  So, no you have not answered my question.  I see you claiming God does not exist, because your "logic" tells you so.  Sorry, but human logic is not capable of answering everything, and your refusal to see that tells me all I need to know.
> 
> And I will say again that the mere presence of life is proof of God's existence.  The end.



Science hypothesizes on the beginning of life. And _that_ answers your question.

And again: It is very interesting that you use human logic for _everything _except when it comes to God. For instance: You don't accept Science's hypothesis about the beginning of life based on your logic. But when it comes to God you claim that logic is not enough to explain him/her. 

You keep putting "The End" statements after a claim that has no proven validity whatsoever. With the same ease I could say:

The mere presence of ice cream is proof of existence of aliens. Don't look for any logic there. Your logic is not sufficient to explain this.

The end?!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> "If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales.
> 
> If you want them to be very intelligent, read them more fairy tales."
> 
> _(Albert Einstein)._



Fairy tales is a method of developing critical thinking. It is not a path to believing what cannot be scientifically proven or at least have a valid scientific hypothesis.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> What exactly do you mean by "existence"?


I don't expect to ever run across a dragon or fairy in person.  Just in good stories.


----------



## Shero (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Fairy tales is a method of developing critical thinking. It is not a path to believing what cannot be scientifically proven or at least have a valid scientific hypothesis.



Einstein also said : “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. He said fairy tales help develop imagination, and that imagination then helps prepare a child to later become a scientist.”


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I don't expect to ever run across a dragon or fairy in person.  Just in good stories.



IF you do... can you please give me a call??


----------



## Shero (Sep 4, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I don't expect to ever run across a dragon or fairy in person.  Just in good stories.


Wait until you meet me


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> Wait until you meet me


Fairy or dragon???


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> Einstein also said : “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. He said fairy tales help develop imagination, and that imagination then helps prepare a child to later become a scientist.”



You are right! Imagination (just like criticism - but that's another story) is a necessary ingredient for improvement. Without imagination, knowledge is stagnated to what it is. In that sense fairy tales do help develop imagination. I should consider it as part of my previous answer.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> Wait until you meet me





Alligatorob said:


> Fairy or dragon???



This is getting interesting! @Alligatorob please take pictures!!!


----------



## Sunny (Sep 4, 2021)

> That was about the time that I, as a true scientist, changed from an atheist to an agnostic. To be an atheist (assertively) one has to have the proof that the deity does not exist. That simply cannot happen.



I went along with you, CAK, until I got to that sentence. To deny that something exists, one does not have to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative.  The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that something _does _exist.

Otherwise, we are in la-la land.  
"I believe in the tooth fairy."
"But why?  Do you have any objective proof?"
"Well, no, but you don't have any proof that she doesn't exist either."

For many years, I also called myself an agnostic, but finally decided that that was a copout.  It was a timid concession that absolutely any religious scenario might exist, just because somebody said it did. So I decided that if I don't believe it, I don't believe it, and it was time to be true to my own convictions.


----------



## Shero (Sep 4, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> Fairy or dragon???


That depends on the situation


----------



## Shero (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> This is getting interesting! @Alligatorob please take pictures!!!


I must tell you CAKCy, real fairies ony appear if you believe!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Sunny said:


> I went along with you, CAK, until I got to that sentence. To deny that something exists, one does not have to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative.  The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that something _does _exist.
> 
> Otherwise, we are in la-la land.
> "I believe in the tooth fairy."
> ...



If you make the statement "God does _not _exist." it is an assertion and as such needs to be proven.
The agnostic statement "I don't have enough evidence that God exists" though an assertion (on the evidence presence) is not an assertion on the existence (or not) of God.

"I don't believe God exists" is, semantically, different than "I believe God does not exist". The latter needs your proof. As a scientist I cannot assert a negative.


----------



## Shero (Sep 4, 2021)

Good discussion CAKCy, see you another day 
kalinychta!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> I must tell you CAKCy, real fairies ony appear if you believe!



Nuh-uh! I'm an agnostic, remember? I don't have enough evidence about real fairies existence therefore the hypothesis is: they do not exist. That does not exclude the possibility of them appearing and proving the hypothesis wrong!


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> *Science hypothesizes on the beginning of life*. And _that_ answers your question.
> 
> And again: It is very interesting that you use human logic for _everything _except when it comes to God. For instance: You don't accept Science's hypothesis about the beginning of life based on your logic. But when it comes to God you claim that logic is not enough to explain him/her.
> 
> ...


Thanks for admitting you have no proof.  A hypothesis is not proof.  And you know that.

Yes I accept human logic for things within the realm of human logic, but realize that God is outside that realm.  Sorry you can't understand that.  But science also takes things as existing even when their existence has not been proven.  Do you believe quarks exist?  They have been hypothesized, but not proven.

You "alien/ice cream" analogy is pretty lame.  Do better.

Yes, the end.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Shero said:


> Good discussion CAKCy, see you another day
> kalinychta!



Yes, it was! Thank you!
Aloha po!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Thanks for admitting you have no proof.  A hypothesis is not proof.  And you know that.
> 
> Yes I accept human logic for things within the realm of human logic, but realize that God is outside that realm.  Sorry you can't understand that.  But science also takes things as existing even when their existence has not been proven.  Do you believe quarks exist?  They have been hypothesized, but not proven.
> 
> ...



Wow... The credits will never end!!!

I have no proof? A hypothesis is no proof? You are absolutely right!
I take it that you have proof that God exists (other than the... lame "your very existence (and mine) is clear evidence that God does exist."
I don't need to do better. Your "proof" or "evidence" is not any better than this.

The end?! (or are commercials to follow?)


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

raybar said:


> My reason for not believing is the complete lack of evidence (to my knowledge) that there exists a god.


The answer is between your parentheses. Your knowledge is limited. Only God is all knowing aka omniscient.
There is evidence all around us...and within us. Some can see it. Some cannot see it.

I'm really envious that an atheist can have a thread where Christians leave you alone. When Christians have a thread, Atheists are all over us like an army of red ants. Well I guess I just changed that for CAKCy's thread but I'm not here to stay. Thank you CAKCy for the visit.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 4, 2021)

What difference does it make?

What is the harm in accepting another person’s religious beliefs.

IMO religion is based on faith not proof.

If you can’t believe in God at least believe in The First Amendment.

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> The answer is between your parentheses. Your knowledge is limited. Only God is all knowing aka omniscient.
> There is evidence all around us...and within us. Some can see it. Some cannot see it.
> 
> I'm really envious that an atheist can have a thread where Christians leave you alone. When Christians have a thread, Atheists are all over us like an army of red ants. Well I guess I just changed that for your thread but I'm not here to stay. Thank you for allowing me to visit.



You are allowed to visit and stay for as long as you like. I'm afraid there can't be much of a debate for obvious reasons, but even the flow of ideas and personal experiences is helpful.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> What difference does it make?
> 
> What is the harm in accepting another person’s religious beliefs.
> 
> ...



There is no harm whatsoever. And I'm ready to accept anyone's beliefs if they don't try to impose them on me (or anybody else) - Group A 

And yes, your are absolutely right: Religion is based on faith.

I see no reason for your mentioning "Free Speech"?!


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I see no reason for your mentioning "Free Speech"?!


I didn’t include it, the framers of the Constitution did.  Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both included in The First Amendment.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> I didn’t include it, the framers of the Constitution did.  Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both included in The First Amendment.



Have I, at any point in my OP, shown disrespect towards Freedom of speech and/or religion? 

If so I would be grateful if you pointed it out to me!


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Have I, at any point in my OP, shown disrespect towards Freedom of speech and/or religion?
> 
> If so I would be grateful if you pointed it out to me!


I’m not looking for an endless analysis or _tit for tat _over every word in my post.

I expressed my opinion over everything I read in this thread.

I’m done.


----------



## Forerunner (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Have I, at any point in my OP, shown disrespect towards Freedom of speech and/or religion?
> 
> If so I would be grateful if you pointed it out to me!


I can't point out what I haven't seen. Not that I'd want to, anyway. God is a reality to me. Maybe you could add a section "D."


----------



## raybar (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> The answer is between your parentheses. Your knowledge is limited. Only God is all knowing aka omniscient.
> There is evidence all around us...and within us. Some can see it. Some cannot see it.
> 
> I'm really envious that an atheist can have a thread where Christians leave you alone. When Christians have a thread, Atheists are all over us like an army of red ants. Well I guess I just changed that for your thread but I'm not here to stay. Thank you for allowing me to visit.



Yes, my knowledge is limited, just like everyone else. So. I am always looking to learn, and I change my views without hesitation whenever new evidence shows that I'm wrong.

If "there is evidence all around us," I am one of those who don't see it. Would you please give some examples.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Forerunner said:


> I can't point out what I haven't seen. Not that I'd want to, anyway. God is a reality to me. Maybe you could add a section "D."



I'd be glad to if you could help me understand why you don't "belong" in Group A.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Wow... The credits will never end!!!
> 
> *I have no proof? A hypothesis is no proof? You are absolutely right!*
> I take it that you have proof that God exists (other than the... lame "your very existence (and mine) is clear evidence that God does exist."
> ...


lol - I can tell you have given up and have conceded the point that you can't prove anything.  Logic has failed you.  I have no need to convince you of God's existence any more that I need to convince you of the existence of quarks.  And in your OP, you said you would rely on logic alone, and would not debate the issue of religion, but yet here you are with ice cream and aliens bs.   

And yes, you need to do better.


----------



## Forerunner (Sep 4, 2021)

When I was 2, my earliest memory was, "I was aware that a short distance in front of me was a bright light. All around it was darkness." When I was 14, someone read from the bible book of John, 3:16. Somewhere, I saw a sword, held by a hand, as it thrust through curtains and plunged into my heart. I knew it was true. 
For me, God is a reality. His Spirit lives in me. I'm not propped up on the theories of others.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> lol - I can tell you have given up and have conceded the point that you can't prove anything.  Logic has failed you.  I have no need to convince you of God's existence any more that I need to convince you of the existence of quarks.  And in your OP, you said you would rely on logic alone, and would not debate the issue of religion, but yet here you are with ice cream and aliens bs.
> 
> And yes, you need to do better.



I knew that "The End" would have more sequels than Mission Impossible....

I am an agnostic. I don't need to prove anything. Logic has not failed me at all. 
In my OP I said that I wouldn't debate religion with anyone belonging in Group A.
I don't think you do...
Unless you raise the bar of this debate I _really_ think I don't need to do better!

(You missed your "doomsday" statement....)


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Forerunner said:


> When I was 2, my earliest memory was, "I was aware that a short distance in front of me was a bright light. All around it was darkness." When I was 14, someone read from the bible book of John, 3:16. Somewhere, I saw a sword, held by a hand, as it thrust through curtains and plunged into my heart. I knew it was true.
> For me, God is a reality. His Spirit lives in me. I'm not propped up on the theories of others.



You won your group! 
The OP was edited as per your request. Consider yourself a member of Group A1.


----------



## Forerunner (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> You won your group!
> The OP was edited as per your request. Consider yourself a member of Group A1.


I don't know what that means. sounds good.


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> You are allowed to visit and stay for as long as you like. I'm afraid there can't be much of a debate for obvious reasons, but even the flow of ideas and personal experiences is helpful.





raybar said:


> Yes, my knowledge is limited, just like everyone else. So. I am always looking to learn, and I change my views without hesitation whenever new evidence shows that I'm wrong. If "there is evidence all around us," I am one of those who don't see it. Would you please give some examples.



I did read your thread @CAKCy  I don't agree of course but it's a good thread. I enjoyed reading it.

@raybar , Here are some examples of evidence you asked for. There is good and evil all around us. Look for the good, for the amazing, for the incredible, for the beautiful, for the magnificent, for the love, for the joy, for the kindness, and you will see God's handiwork. That's evidence and so much more...

You're in California...stare at the ocean, see all the shades of blue and emerald green, see the beauty of the sunrise and sunset, the dolphins jumping playfully out of the water and communicating, the horizon, the stars. Feel the mighty power of the waves, sand under your feet, the ocean breeze, smell the salt air, bend down to touch a starfish and remember the the entire living ecosystem beneath the surface of the water. Take a deep breath and feel good about being alive. Who gave you the nose and lungs to be able to do that? hmm, who is this intelligent designer? A big chaotic bang? A mud puddle? Where did all the energy come from?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Forerunner said:


> I don't know what that means. sounds good.


That means that I changed my original categorization to include a group of people like yourself who had first-hand personal experiences in their relation with God and are convinced that God exists because of them and not because of "hearsay" i.e. by listening to others or by reading the scripture. I'm glad you think it's good!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> I did read your thread @CAKCy I don't agree of course but it's a good thread. I enjoyed reading it.


Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed reading it!


----------



## Irwin (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Science has no proof that God does not exist, nor can Science prove that God does exist.  You know that.  So, no you have not answered my question.  I see you claiming God does not exist, because your "logic" tells you so.  Sorry, but human logic is not capable of answering everything, and your refusal to see that tells me all I need to know.
> 
> And I will say again that the mere presence of life is proof of God's existence.  The end.


I say that the mere presence of life is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence. The end.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I say that the mere presence of life is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence. The end.


This thread has broken the record of "The End"s... 
It should be named ... "The End thread"..........


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 4, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> What difference does it make?
> 
> What is the harm in accepting another person’s religious beliefs.


Absolutely, interesting to talk about, but everyone has their own beliefs.  

Only mine are right!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> Absolutely, interesting to talk about, but everyone has their own beliefs.
> 
> Only mine are right!


People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - Isaak Asimov


----------



## Irwin (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> This thread has broken the record of "The End"s...
> It should be named ... "The End thread"..........


----------



## Capt Lightning (Sep 4, 2021)

It's all too easy to see the world through 'Rose tinted glasses' and associate this with a god who created it.  It however ignores the bad things in the world..  I'm not talking about man made problems, but what about disease, what about children born with deformities or incurable illness ?
If this 'god' created the good things, then surely he/she/it must be equally responsible for the bad.

Come to think about it, why did this 'god' even bother creating a universe 13+  billion years ago.  Why did things go through millions of years of evolution.  Why were the dinosaurs killed off?  How many versions of hominoids were created before homo sapiens evolved?  

I don't know why the universe came into existence.  If I believed it was a 'god' who created it, then I would have to assume that he/she/it was  on a massive ego trip that went sadly awry.   I would also ask, who created this god?   Are people going to say that this god always existed?  That would be so convenient, wouldn't it.   

Oh poo! I just want to enjoy my life, and when I die, that's it -  the end.


----------



## raybar (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> @raybar , there is good and evil all around us. Look for the good, for the amazing, for the incredible, for the beautiful, for the magnificent, for the love, for the joy, for the kindness, and you will see God's handiwork. That's evidence and so much more...
> 
> You're in California...stare at the ocean, see all the shades of blue and emerald green, see the beauty of the sunrise and sunset, the dolphins jumping playfully out of the water and communicating, the horizon, the stars. Feel the mighty power of the waves, sand under your feet, the ocean breeze, smell the salt air, bend down to touch a starfish and remember the the entire living ecosystem beneath the surface of the water. Take a deep breath and feel good about being alive. Who gave you the nose and lungs to be able to do that? hmm, who is this intelligent designer? A big chaotic bang? A mud puddle? Where did all the energy come from?



Your last sentence: "Where did all the energy come from?" That's the real question. Not, "Does God exist?" The real question is "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" How and why does the universe exist?

God is an answer to that question; the world exists because God made and sustains it.

I see the beauty around us. I appreciate all the things you mentioned. But this is not evidence of God. It is simply observation. Evidence of
God could be something like "A, B, C, D, and E all exist and interact with one another. But there is no possible way this combination of things, and the interactions between them, could arise naturally. In fact, this these phenomena violate all the laws of physics (as far as we understand them). Therefore an external agent, which is making these thing happen, must exist."

After the big bang, everything that has occurred - the entire development of the universe we see around us - is consistent with the laws of physics (so far as we understand them). We still much to learn, but I have never heard of a single counter-example.

Questions such as "is there a god" or "why is there anything" or "what's the source of the universe" are not even addressed by any of this. There's just no evidence to consider, neither pro nor con.

In the end I come to what I said above (message 9 of this thread): "My reason for not believing is the complete lack of evidence (to my knowledge) that there exists a god." 

Maybe there is a god, maybe not. Belief is a matter of faith, not evidence.


----------



## Oris Borloff (Sep 4, 2021)

Is there a god?   I'm on a "need to know" basis, and I don't need to know.  It doesn't make any difference in my life, and that seems to upset some people too.  Go figure...


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 4, 2021)

Interesting thread.

I believe that the complexity of the universe is evidence of design and creation. I can't buy into the theory that it all happened by accident.

The beginning?


----------



## Irwin (Sep 4, 2021)

raybar said:


> Your last sentence: "Where did all the energy come from?" That's the real question. Not, "Does God exist?" The real question is "Why is there anything rather than nothing?" How and why does the universe exist?
> 
> God is an answer to that question; the world exists because God made and sustains it.


"God" is simply a way to explain things that, at at a certain point in time, we don't understand.

Back when people didn't understand earthquakes, volcanos, storms, lightening, floods, droughts, and other natural disasters, they believed "god" was responsible. Most people no longer hold those beliefs (in developed nations, anyway) because we now understand the science behind those phenomena. Some day, we'll understand more about the beginning of time and the creation of the universe or in all likelihood, universes. When that day comes, perhaps people will cease believing in "god."


----------



## raybar (Sep 4, 2021)

Irwin said:


> "God" is simply a way to explain things that, at at a certain point in time, we don't understand.
> 
> Back when people didn't understand earthquakes, volcanos, storms, lightening, floods, droughts, and other natural disasters, they believed "god" was responsible. Most people no longer hold those beliefs (in developed nations, anyway) because we now understand the science behind those phenomena. Some day, we'll understand more about the beginning of time and the creation of the universe or in all likelihood, universes. When that day comes, perhaps people will cease believing in "god."


Yes, the "god of the gaps" has been shrinking for a long time. But even if all the gaps are eliminated, and we understand everything about how things work throughout the multiverse, I wonder if we would ever find the ultimate source of existence. 

And I often wonder whether we are really asking the right questions.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 4, 2021)

God created science.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 4, 2021)

God created monkeys soon after he saw how bad he messed up on creating man.


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Some day, we'll understand more about the beginning of time and the creation of the universe or in all likelihood, universes. When that day comes, perhaps people will cease believing in "god."


I believe we already know when the beginning of time was...when the sun and the moon were created, giving us day and night...thus "time". 
That was for our benefit, to have light by day and moon light by night for navigation. And no, that knowledge is not going to make believers cease in believing in God.


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

raybar said:


> Yes, the "god of the gaps" has been shrinking for a long time. But even if all the gaps are eliminated, and we understand everything about how things work throughout the multiverse, I wonder if we would ever find the ultimate source of existence.
> 
> And I often wonder whether we are really asking the right questions.


"All the gaps" will never be eliminated because that would eliminate "faith".  God wants to be loved through our faith in Him.
You ask "will we ever find the ultimate source of existence? I believe we have...God's creation. Did you mean, who created God? I believe he wasn't created. He just is and always will be existing. We can't understand for now because our brains aren't able.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I say that the mere presence of life is proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence. The end.


And I wholeheartedly agree!    God takes many forms.


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I knew that "The End" would have more sequels than Mission Impossible....
> 
> I am an agnostic*. I don't need to prove anything.* Logic has not failed me at all.
> In my OP I said that I wouldn't debate religion with anyone belonging in Group A.
> ...


Good because you certainly haven't proven me wrong.  And now you are trying to renege on your initial post about not debating religion with believers.    And you never did say if you believed in quarks or not.  

Try harder.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 4, 2021)

raybar said:


> Yes, the "god of the gaps" has been shrinking for a long time. But even if all the gaps are eliminated, and we understand everything about how things work throughout the multiverse, I wonder if we would ever find the ultimate source of existence.
> 
> And I often wonder whether we are really asking the right questions.


People are asking "why are we here?" and in all probability, there is no satisfying answer.


----------



## raybar (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> "All the gaps" will never be eliminated because that would eliminate "faith".  God wants to be loved through our faith in Him.
> You ask "will we ever find the ultimate source of existence? I believe we have...God's creation. Did you mean, who created God? I believe he wasn't created. He just is and always will be existing. We can't understand for now because our brains aren't able.


Knowledge of how the universe functions would never be a challenge to your faith. Instead of doubt, you might find your faith enhanced by the same sense of awe and wonder and majesty I get from understanding the world around me, even just a little. 

=====

In Message 91 above, you said you "believe we already know when the beginning of time was...when the sun and the moon were created ..."

This is factually incorrect. The universe, based on very solid evidence, is about 13.8 billion years old, and the earth about 4.5 billions old. The  world did not come about as portrayed in Genesis.

But again, that's not a challenge to your faith. Biblical stories are not about being factually and historically correct (most of my family disagree).  I heard it said in a discussion once somewhere that "if you're worried about whether it's true, you've missed the point of the story." These stories are about our relationship with God. The details of the story aren't very important. Would the lessons in the Flood story change if it had rained on Noah for 50 days instead of 40? Would it make any difference if Jesus had risen in 3 weeks instead of 3 days?

Faith is about god - that he exists, that he created and sustains everything, that we have a relationship with him, and so on. It's not, I suggest, about whether these ancient stories are scientifically and historically accurate.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Interesting thread.
> 
> I believe that the complexity of the universe is evidence of design and creation. I can't buy into the theory that it all happened by accident.
> 
> The beginning?



The complexity of the universe is not evidence of anything. If nothing else one should observe the random events that happen in space. Death and creation of new celestial bodies. 

The beginning? We don't understand it. Yet. But simply because we don't understand it doesn't mean that there is a God. Because if one's logic reaches to the second step of the creation: "Since there's a beginning we don't understand... therefore God"... it shouldn't stop there. It should have the power to move on to the first step: "Who created God?".


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> God created science.



Ummm.... no...


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Good because you certainly haven't proven me wrong.  And now you are trying to renege on your initial post about not debating religion with believers.    And you never did say if you believed in quarks or not.
> 
> Try harder.



As I said: I don't need to prove anything. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the one who makes the assertion. Identify yourself as a member of Group A and I will stop debating with you. Besides I happen to be the OP of this thread. You came afterwards questioning my post.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Irwin said:


> People are asking "why are we here?" and in all probability, there is no satisfying answer.



Yet.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Yet.


You have more faith in Science than I do.  I kinda think we will just keep getting closer and closer, but never really there to the biggest questions.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> You have more faith in Science than I do.  I kinda think we will just keep getting closer and closer, but never really there to the biggest questions.


I guess I do. It won't be today that we are going to have an answer about any question (remember it's the weekend) but I'm pretty positive that at some point we'll make it (if we don't kill ourselves first).


----------



## Lara (Sep 4, 2021)

Good post #96 raybar but it's my belief that Scripture may be misinterpreted, but it will never be wrong. When fallible science does not correspond with fallible theology, I don't blame the Bible. The scientific assumptions may be wrong, or the biblical interpretations may be wrong, or both, but the Scriptures never are in my belief. An unfortunate tendency in atheism is to compare science to a single interpretation of the Bible, then declare science has “proved” the Bible incorrect. This, in my opinion, is illogical. At the most, all that might be disproved is that particular interpretation of Scripture.

I have faith that God’s written Word is the final authority in all matters that it addresses. Yet it's not always specific on all points. The exact age of the earth and the minute details of how God created it are among those issues left vague in Scripture.

There are reasons to doubt prevailing views of the fossil record. The fields of paleontology and fossils are highly prone to error. In the last century, we have witnessed countless examples of “groundbreaking” discoveries that have ultimately been proved misleading.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Lara said:


> Good post #84 raybar but it's my belief that Scripture may be misinterpreted, but it will never be wrong. When fallible science does not correspond with fallible theology, I don't blame the Bible. The scientific assumptions may be wrong, or the biblical interpretations may be wrong, or both, but the Scriptures never are in my belief. An unfortunate tendency in atheism is to compare science to a single interpretation of the Bible, then declare science has “proved” the Bible incorrect. This, in my opinion, is illogical. At the most, all that might be disproved is that particular interpretation of Scripture.
> 
> I have faith that God’s written Word is the final authority in all matters that it addresses. Yet it's not always specific on all points. The exact age of the earth and the minute details of how God created it are among those issues left vague in Scripture.
> 
> There are reasons to doubt prevailing views of the fossil record. The fields of paleontology and fossils are highly prone to error. In the last century, we have witnessed countless examples of “groundbreaking” discoveries that have ultimately been proved misleading.



And that's the beauty and bravery of Science. That it's not afraid to admit that a hypothesis is wrong, based on evidence, and start over.

On the other hand the (man-made) scriptures are "infallible" having people take the blame for their faults by admitting "wrong interpretation". Despite the fact that there is historical evidence about how the "Holy Bible" was put together by men for specific reasons.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

Forerunner said:


> When I was 2, my earliest memory was, "I was aware that a short distance in front of me was a bright light. All around it was darkness." When I was 14, someone read from the bible book of John, 3:16. Somewhere, I saw a sword, held by a hand, as it thrust through curtains and plunged into my heart. I knew it was true.
> For me, God is a reality. His Spirit lives in me. I'm not propped up on the theories of others.


Road to Damascus experiences are possible, even for atheists and agnostics. I attest to this as a former atheist who was  called out of darkness at the age of 33. Not in a church, nor by any evangelist. Nor by reasoned argument, but by a voice that called to something deep inside me. It called me by name and it required a response. I could have responded with Yes, No or Go away. I chose Yes and my life changed from that day forward. 

Materialism and cold logic take us only so far in the understanding of all things. To understand more we must embrace mystery. Mystery opens the door to understanding what the words "life in all its fullness" are pointing to.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - Isaak Asimov


Asimov was very full of himself. I enjoyed his Robot series but the man was very narcissistic.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Asimov was very full of himself. I enjoyed his Robot series but the man was very narcissistic.



Welcome to the discussion! 

I used his statement as a joke. I haven't studied the man himself.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are not akin to Newton's Laws of Motion.
Although they sound very logical and perfectly reasonable, they are a work of fiction.

Einstein's theory general relativity (Einstein's theory of general relativity | Space) did not sound very reasonable when he first announced it and even he doubted his proposition.
However, long after his death scientists have found the evidence that supports general relativity.

Perhaps, at some future time when sentient robots are a reality, Asimov's laws may become real. Wisdom is the ability to leave room for uncertainty and doubt. Know-it-alls are seldom open to having their minds changed even when experience slaps them in the face.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics are not akin to Newton's Laws of Motion.
> Although they sound very logical and perfectly reasonable, they are a work of fiction.
> 
> Einstein's theory general relativity (Einstein's theory of general relativity | Space) did not sound very reasonable when he first announced it and even he doubted his proposition.
> ...



That's why I chose the agnostic path instead of that of an atheist...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

Agnosticism is a cop out. You have chosen a path that leads nowhere because it asks for no commitment. You could be the lukewarm person that this passage refers to:

Revelation 3:15
‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.

To what are you committed? Where, beyond yourself, does your passion lie ?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Agnosticism is a cop out. You have chosen a path that leads nowhere because it asks for no commitment. You could be the lukewarm person that this passage refers to:
> 
> Revelation 3:15
> ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot.
> ...



You are absolutely entitled to your opinion! I don't consider agnosticism to be a cop out. I consider it to be the responsible position of a scientist. If I have no clear evidence to make the assertion "God does not exist" I simply cannot make it. The best I can do with what is available to the scientific community is the agnostic statement "We don't have any evidence proving that God exists.". But the journey does not stop here. As with any other scientific hypothesis the work continues until it is proven or disproven. For one to commit oneself to an assertion, either way, "God exists" or "God does not exist" is one being a... know-it-all.

If all of the above sounds "lukewarm" to you so be it.


----------



## Knight (Sep 4, 2021)

Until this thread I considered myself to be an atheist. I think I lean more to agnostic.

As science pushes forward with exploration it's science that will give humans a verifiable answer if some form of life exists other than here on earth.

But if discovered that won't answer the question of creation or evolution. Did a creator create other life too? This as a subject to discuss is interesting to me mostly because it has no right or wrong just opinions.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Knight said:


> Until this thread I considered myself to be an atheist. I think I lean more to agnostic.
> 
> As science pushes forward with exploration it's science that will give humans a verifiable answer if some form of life exists other than here on earth.
> 
> But if discovered that won't answer the question of creation or evolution. Did a creator create other life too?



I don't think that a "Creator" would create Earth and the life on it and stop there. Life elsewhere, probably, exists and it's either following the same or a similar evolution path as we do or has been given its final form by the "Creator" depending on which hypothesis you support.

Even if accidental randomness was the explanation of life beginning on earth, the vastness of the universe makes the odds of the same randomness to have happened somewhere else too.


----------



## Knight (Sep 4, 2021)

Final form, that is the mystery. Made in our image is the popular understanding. I question because I don't know exactly what that image is. I doubt I'll live long enough to ever find out.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Knight said:


> Final form, that is the mystery. Made in our image is the popular understanding. I question because I don't know exactly what that image is. I doubt I'll live long enough to ever find out.



We will cease to exist with our knowledge having been raised a thousandth of a notch...


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> You are absolutely entitled to your opinion! I don't consider agnosticism to be a cop out. I consider it to be the responsible position of a scientist. If I have no clear evidence to make the assertion "God does not exist" I simply cannot make it. The best I can do with what is available to the scientific community is the agnostic statement "We don't have any evidence proving that God exists.". But the journey does not stop here. As with any other scientific hypothesis the work continues until it is proven or disproven. For one to commit oneself to an assertion, either way, "God exists" or "God does not exist" is one being a... know-it-all.
> 
> If all of the above sounds "lukewarm" to you so be it.


Luke warm is exactly the right word for agnosticism. It does not imply moral judgement but it does describe the midpoint between an atheist and a theist.

I am reminded that it is a Jewish saying that a man can be with God or against God but he can never be without God.

I repeat my question. To what beyond yourself, have you dedicated your life ?
With dedication comes an inevitable amount of commitment, service and possibly some personal sacrifice. And as a supplementary question, what drives your commitment?

You don't have to put your answer into words but it is a question worth some private meditation for all of us.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Luke warm is exactly the right word for agnosticism. It does not imply moral judgement but is does describe the midpoint between an atheist and a theist.
> 
> I repeat the question. To what beyond yourself, have you dedicated your life ? With dedication comes come an inevitable amount of service and possibly some personal sacrifice. And as a supplementary question, what drives your commitment?
> 
> You don't have to put your answer into words but it is a question worth some private meditation for all of us.



Then lukewarm is the way science chose for this and other matters. When there is no clear answer on anything, science has a hypothesis which can be strong or not.

I dedicated my life to improving my corner of the world. By trying to make myself a better person and sharing my personal experiences, mistakes and lessons with others. And yes it has included personal sacrifices. When I was younger idealism drove my commitment. When getting older and wiser, pure idealism gave its place to idealism mixed with pragmatism.

Do I get the job?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

Knight said:


> Until this thread I considered myself to be an atheist. I think I lean more to agnostic.
> 
> As science pushes forward with exploration it's science that will give humans a verifiable answer if some form of life exists other than here on earth.
> 
> But if discovered that won't answer the question of creation or evolution. Did a creator create other life too? This as a subject to discuss is interesting to me mostly because it has no right or wrong just opinions.


I think the question of evolution is firmly established as a real, observable phenomenon. I can see no reason why life could not arise beyond earth provided the necessary conditions are present. Most likely to be carbon, hydrogen and oxygen based but there are other chemical possibilities. Iron, silicon and sulphur are other possibilities. It's all about being able to access energy.

However, even such discoveries won't have much bearing on the question of whether the universe is an accident, a fluke, an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics or the gift from something that is not of the universe. Something that we label God (by many other names) and which we can only begin to relate to with another gift - the gift of imagery and imagination.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Then lukewarm is the way science chose for this and other matters. When there is no clear answer on anything, science has a hypothesis which can be strong or not.
> 
> I dedicated my life to improving my corner of the world. By trying to make myself a better person and sharing my personal experiences, mistakes and lessons with others. And yes it has included personal sacrifices. When I was younger idealism drove my commitment. When getting older and wiser, pure idealism gave its place to idealism mixed with pragmatism.
> 
> Do I get the job?


No, because science is not a person.

Scientists on the other hand are some of the most committed people on this planet. They are committed to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the material universe. They dedicate themselves to this chosen field, sometimes at peril of their own safety. They are never lukewarm about their work but they are able to be atheists, theists or agnostics. They can also, in one lifetime, convert from one of these categories to another.

It seems that we are talking at cross purposes.

In my case I have always been interested in science. This interest led me to reject the idea of a personal saviour that I had learnt about during my childhood. I would have liked a career in chemistry but had to settle for teaching for lack of money.

I have never lost my fascination for science but faced with some of life's painful tragedies I found myself an empty shell unable to offer comfort to myself (forgiveness) or to others (compassion). That changed when I had my epiphany age 33. The emptiness was filled, compassion and forgiveness were released and I realised that teaching was my true vocation, the thing I was made for. My commitment to God is to feed his lambs, something I have done ever since and continue to do to this day. There are some sacrifices but compared to the joy experienced, they are miniscule.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 4, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> No, because science is not a person.
> 
> Scientists on the other hand are some of the most committed people on this planet. They are committed to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the material universe. They dedicate themselves to this chosen field, sometimes at peril of their own safety. They are never lukewarm about their work but they are able to be atheists, theists or agnostics. They can also, in one lifetime, convert from one of these categories to another.
> 
> ...



Thank you for sharing your personal experience.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 4, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> No, because science is not a person.
> 
> Scientists on the other hand are some of the most committed people on this planet. They are committed to increasing the knowledge and understanding of the material universe. They dedicate themselves to this chosen field, sometimes at peril of their own safety. They are never lukewarm about their work but they are able to be atheists, theists or agnostics. They can also, in one lifetime, convert from one of these categories to another.
> 
> ...


It's great that you found your calling. Teaching can be enjoyable. I taught a class at a continuing education school for several years and it was a kick, although it was just a two session class that I taught every other month or so. I probably wouldn't be able to handle teaching every day since I agree with Jean Paul Sartre that "hell is other people." Before long, I'd pass judgement on myself and become self-conscious. By the end of the first week, I'd be a total mess and have to quit.

One of my neighbors is a professor of religion at a fairly prestigious university in Denver. I was talking to him about it several years ago and he said he felt "blessed" to be able to talk about what he wanted to talk about all day. I'm not sure if he's deeply religious or he's just really interested in religion, but I'm sure it does feel like you're blessed if you get to earn a living doing what you're passionate about. It's also a blessing to be passionate about something. I can't say I've ever felt that way about anything.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 4, 2021)

Absolutely. I used to say "Don't tell anybody but I would be happy to do this for nothing". Since I was a teacher of teenage girls many people thought that I was out of my mind. 

Since I have retired, that is exactly what I do, although as the years roll on I do it less now. During the Covid lockdown I have had no contact with any children, not even my little great grand son.

I put up with the strictures of lockdown for the sake of the children and consider the sacrifice to be tiny.


----------



## Jennina (Sep 4, 2021)

Sunny said:


> To deny that something exists, one does not have to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that something _does _exist.


----------



## Jennina (Sep 5, 2021)

Sunny said:


> To deny that something exists, one does not have to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that something _does _exist.


I agree.

"That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Jennina said:


> I agree.
> 
> "That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens


That's kind of a double-edged sword. While Hitchens solved the problem of the assertion "God exists" by dismissing it (since it's without proof) the atheist will find a trouble proving their assertion "God does not exist" which can similarly be dismissed.

Though it's a play of words or semantics it's important to follow the sequence of events. If a believer makes an assertion first, that assertion can be dismissed as per Hitchens. But if an atheist makes the assertion first he/she will find him/herself in deep waters.

It is a lot safer to assert that "We don't have enough evidence to prove God's existence" since this can be proven scientifically and cannot be dismissed.

Makes sense?


----------



## Jennina (Sep 5, 2021)

Sunny said:


> To deny that something exists, one does not have to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that something _does _exist.


I agree.

"That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

Where is the proof that love exists?
Dawkins posits that love is merely the action of the "selfish gene", however he never actually  identified the location of that particular gene on any particular chromosome.

Some things that are neither matter nor energy do exist - I assert that love does indeed exist. 

Who is going to dismiss the idea of love ?


----------



## Buckeye (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> As I said: I don't need to prove anything. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the one who makes the assertion. Identify yourself as a member of Group A and I will stop debating with you. Besides I happen to be the OP of this thread. You came afterwards questioning my post.


And as I said, you haven't.  And please get your facts straight.  Way back on post 9, Raybar cited lack of proof of God, and on post 13 I made the statement that life was indeed proof of God's existence.  I was not responding to you.  You came along in post 22 with your "that's quite a leap" statement.  So the burden is on you to support your statement that life is not proof.  And you have not done that, because their is no such proof.  To me, my statement is self evident, and no additional proof is required.  It is beyond your human logic.

p.s. - being the OP does not give you any special rights to define the debate or to set down rules.  It is an open forum.  And I keep responding because you keeping taking the bait.  You quit biting, and I'll quit casting a line into the water.


----------



## Lara (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Where is the proof that love exists?
> Dawkins posits that love is merely the action of the "selfish gene", however he never actually  identified the location of that particular gene on any particular chromosome. Some things that are neither matter nor energy do exist - I assert that love does indeed exist. Who is going to dismiss the idea of love ?



But Love is the opposite of "selfish". Maybe Dawkins has never experienced true love and devotion.
I don't doubt for a second that there is a selfish gene though...just not connected to love.

Love exists. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it doesn't keep a record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. And now these three things remain, Faith, Hope, and Love, but the greatest of these is Love." ~1 Corinthians 13


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

Of course love exists. Lara has just quoted one man's understanding of it. How many times have men and women written about love? Shakespeare alone wrote 154 love sonnets.

Not all of the writing about love are about sex, which is a different concept altogether.

My challenge is why do the people who refer to the Sky Fairy not also disparage love in the same way? Try to answer rationally using your best logic and with reference to known and proven science. I cannot do this, yet I still believe that love is very real.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> And as I said, you haven't.  And please get your facts straight.  Way back on post 9, Raybar cited lack of proof of God, and on post 13 I made the statement that life was indeed proof of God's existence.  I was not responding to you.  You came along in post 22 with your "that's quite a leap" statement.  So the burden is on you to support your statement that life is not proof.  And you have not done that, because their is no such proof.  To me, my statement is self evident, and no additional proof is required.  It is beyond your human logic.
> 
> p.s. - being the OP does not give you any special rights to define the debate or to set down rules.  It is an open forum.  And I keep responding because you keeping taking the bait.  You quit biting, and I'll quit casting a line into the water.



You are right, of course. I should've ignored you from the very beginning. 

The End


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Where is the proof that love exists?
> Dawkins posits that love is merely the action of the "selfish gene", however he never actually  identified the location of that particular gene on any particular chromosome.
> 
> Some things that are neither matter nor energy do exist - I assert that love does indeed exist.
> ...





Warrigal said:


> Of course love exists. Lara has just quoted one man's understanding of it. How many times have men and women written about love? Shakespeare alone wrote 154 love sonnets.
> 
> Not all of the writing about love are about sex, which is a different concept altogether.
> 
> My challenge is why do the people who refer to the Sky Fairy not also disparage love in the same way? Try to answer rationally using your best logic and with reference to known and proven science. I cannot do this, yet I still believe that love is very real.



The scientific study of emotions, especially love, is extensive and has a number of hypotheses and evidence. Brain activity through brain imaging as well as release/actions of specific chemicals have been studied by neurochemistry with clear results. So your assertion that love does indeed exist has scientific evidence to back it up.


----------



## Lara (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> My challenge is why do the people who refer to the Sky Fairy not also disparage love in the same way? Try to answer rationally using your best logic and with reference to known and proven science. I cannot do this, yet I still believe that love is very real.


I didn't know what a Sky Fairy is so I looked it up. Here's a link for others who may not know:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2015/11/in-defense-of-the-christian-god-as-magic-sky-fairy/


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> I didn't know what a Sky Fairy is so I looked it up. Here's a link for others who may not know:
> https://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2015/11/in-defense-of-the-christian-god-as-magic-sky-fairy/



Interesting reading. Thank you! I avoid using derogatory terms for the beliefs of anybody and I try to avoid debating religion unless one is trying to impose their beliefs on me/others or one is using religion for one's personal gain, as I have already stated in my OP.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 5, 2021)

Long ago I decided to leave theology to the theologians. I am wired to need to live a purposeful life. I found that in living a life of service. Spiritual I suppose rather than religious. I find organised religions  claustrophobic and rather too male oriented. Empath and poet that I am, I am drawn to some sort of Universal Pattern that I sense,

not logical, but much more than that. My creativity is pulled from that like invisible threads of spider silk. So are my compassion, intuition and other traits to which I aspire. I can call this Pattern anything I choose, Deity, or otherwise, but it works for me, without constraints. In some indefinable way, I belong. Namaste.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> I didn't know what a Sky Fairy is so I looked it up. Here's a link for others who may not know:
> https://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2015/11/in-defense-of-the-christian-god-as-magic-sky-fairy/


You get it now. It is intentionally offensive and disrespectful.


----------



## Capt Lightning (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> I believe we already know when the beginning of time was...when the sun and the moon were created, giving us day and night...thus "time".
> That was for our benefit, to have light by day and moon light by night for navigation. And no, that knowledge is not going to make believers cease in believing in God.


Time existed long before our solar system came into being and Earth existed a long time before even the most primitive  life came into being.
Time, as we understand it, logically came into existence with the beginning of the universe. We cannot know what existed, or didn't exist before that point. Some might say "God" existed, but that is faith,not knowledge.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> The complexity of the universe is not evidence of anything. If nothing else one should observe the random events that happen in space. Death and creation of new celestial bodies.
> 
> The beginning? We don't understand it. Yet. But simply because we don't understand it doesn't mean that there is a God. Because if one's logic reaches to the second step of the creation: "Since there's a beginning we don't understand... therefore God"... it shouldn't stop there. It should have the power to move on to the first step: "Who created God?".


I politely disagree. When you see a Ferrari on the street, do you think all the pieces just happened to come together by chance? Do you not see that it was designed and created. Yet how much more complex is our universe, our world, our bodies?

"They have eyes, and they do not see, They have ears, and they do not hear." "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

The reference to "The Beginning" was said tongue in cheek to the posts that kept referring to the end. You read too much into my sentence or perhaps I didn't communicate it well.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> Long ago I decided to leave theology to the theologians. I am wired to need to live a purposeful life. I found that in living a life of service. Spiritual I suppose rather than religious. I find organised religions  claustrophobic and rather too male oriented. Empath and poet that I am, I am drawn to some sort of Universal Pattern that I sense,
> 
> not logical, but much more than that. My creativity is pulled from that like invisible threads of spider silk. So are my compassion, intuition and other traits to which I aspire. I can call this Pattern anything I choose, Deity, or otherwise, but it works for me, without constraints. In some indefinable way, I belong. Namaste.



My Lady, welcome to the discussion! 

The hierarchies of organized religions have a purpose and a target a lot more sinister than believers care to admit. I understand your choice of a non-dogmatic, independent spiritualism rather than canned religions. What are your sources of enrichment of this spiritualism, if I may ask?


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

God created science. 


CAKCy said:


> Ummm.... no...


Ummm... yes...  _The ping pong ball is back on your side of the table._

Not much of an answer for a man or woman of science.

I'm enjoying the conversation and could go all day as long as the banter remains friendly. I've been down this road sooooo many times before and I don't mind traveling it with you my friend, but in the end it ends up being circular in nature and neither party embraces the views of the other. With that in mind, is it worth discussing? By all means, as one day, this side of heaven or the other you'll change your mind.

Have a good day.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> I politely disagree. When you see a Ferrari on the street, do you think all the pieces just happened to come together by chance? Do you not see that it was designed and created. Yet how much more complex is our universe, our world, our bodies?
> 
> "They have eyes, and they do not see, They have ears, and they do not hear." "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
> 
> The reference to "The Beginning" was said tongue in cheek to the posts that kept referring to the end. You read too much into my sentence or perhaps I didn't communicate it well.



I have a problem disagreeing with somebody who "_politely" _disagrees with me but I have to!  

No, a Ferrari had a designer and a creator. That does not, necessarily, apply to everything. An ink bottle overturned by the wind and creating a blotch on a piece of paper is a random event with a random result. Even if the result is beautiful to look at.

Maybe I do have eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear. And maybe my wisdom is that of a fool. But I cannot leave the path of logic and accept something without any evidence or proof. Or accept unrelated data to be evidence of the truth.

...or maybe I didn't interpret it well. My apologies.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> My Lady, welcome to the discussion!
> 
> The hierarchies of organized religions have a purpose and a target a lot more sinister than believers care to admit. I understand your choice of a non-dogmatic, independent spiritualism rather than canned religions. What are your sources of enrichment of this spiritualism, if I may ask?


I cannot explain. They reside in the spaces between words.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 5, 2021)

Great discussion, goodnight all.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> God created science.
> 
> Ummm... yes...  _The ping pong ball is back on your side of the table._
> 
> ...



Ummm... no... Your game... 

Maybe my answer was very poor for a scientist. The assertion left me no option.

The conversation _is _enjoyable. But you are right, that it will soon end up being circular in nature. For a simple reason: I base my part of the discussion on logic. You base yours on faith. Sadly, there is no common ground to debate it any longer.

Have a wonderful day/night yourself!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> Great discussion, goodnight all.



Good night to you!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> I cannot explain. They reside in the spaces between words.



I knew about reading between the lines... 
Now one has to study the spaces between words!
This is getting more and more complicated!


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I have a problem disagreeing with somebody who "_politely" _disagrees with me but I have to!
> 
> No, a Ferrari had a designer and a creator. That does not, necessarily, apply to everything. An ink bottle overturned by the wind and creating a blotch on a piece of paper is a random event with a random result. Even if the result is beautiful to look at.
> 
> ...


Random actions are a part of the world in which we live and I think they are part of the Maker's grand design. The random existence of an ink blotch in no way negates that the little red car was designed and created. Your reasoning "seems" to imply that everything is accidental or sporadic in nature. I myself find that a much greater leap than a belief in God. I think I'll have another sip of my accidental coffee, while I await your reply.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I knew about reading between the lines...
> Now one has to study the spaces between words!
> This is getting more and more complicated!


There are many worlds in [the] space(s). Seen and unseen.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Random actions are a part of the world in which we live and I think they are part of the Maker's grand design. The random existence of an ink blotch in no way negates that the little red car was designed and created. Your reasoning "seems" to imply that everything is accidental or sporadic in nature. I myself find that a much greater leap than a belief in God. I think I'll have another sip of my accidental coffee, while I await your reply.



Everything _is _accidental or sporadic in nature unless a logic explanation exists about it. I don't think this is a leap of any sort. People over the ages tried to attribute the unknown to a God (the Sun is warm and bright, therefore the Sun is a God). The progress of science has proven that the Sun, the moon, the lightning etc. are not Gods or Gods' creations but nothing more than natural phenomena. I believe that at some point this will happen with the last of the Mohicans too. Science will progress to the point of explaining everything there is to explain.

But... do you agree that we don't have common ground to continue with this debate? Logic Vs Faith don't have much in common, do they?


----------



## Shero (Sep 5, 2021)

Mon ami, you say “No, a Ferrari had a designer and a creator.” You have answered the most important question of all time CAKCy  . 

The universe also has a designer and creator,  c'est - God.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Shero said:


> Mon ami, you say “No, a Ferrari had a designer and a creator.” You have answered the most important question of all time CAKCy  .
> 
> The universe also has a designer and creator,  c'est - God.



Have you finished your fish and came back to continue punching? 

I respect your belief and I won't argue with it.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Everything _is _accidental or sporadic in nature unless a logic explanation exists about it. I don't think this is a leap of any sort. People over the ages tried to attribute the unknown to a God (the Sun is warm and bright, therefore the Sun is a God). The progress of science has proven that the Sun, the moon, the lightning etc. are not Gods or Gods' creations but nothing more than natural phenomena. I believe that at some point this will happen with the last of the Mohicans too. Science will progress to the point of explaining everything there is to explain.
> 
> But... do you agree that we don't have common ground to continue with this debate? Logic Vs Faith don't have much in common, do they?


Mind Blown 

Carefully read your reply.

On one hand you state, "Everything is accidental or sporadic in nature unless a logic[al] explanation exists..." in the next breath you state, "Science will progress to the point of explaining everything there is to explain." in which case nothing could be sporadic or accidental, which would negate your ideology mentioned in past posts.

Oh CAKCy, I'm enjoying our conversation much too much (I hope you are too) to dismiss it so quickly.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> ...The progress of science has proven that the Sun, the moon, the lightning etc. are not Gods or Gods' creations but nothing more than natural phenomena. ...


The Maker designed the natural phenomena into the universe, world, etc.


----------



## Shero (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Have you finished your fish and came back to continue punching?
> 
> I respect your belief and I won't argue with it.


No, no, argue, but you won't win, we can find some common ground though. The fish was great, I ate too much and had to have a nap. Had you come and brought some baklava (my favourite sweet), you would have sat at the head of the table!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Mind Blown
> 
> Carefully read your reply.
> 
> ...



We cannot have a conversation with your mind blown!

There is no negation where you see one. Science has a long way to go. Everything not explained by science, yet, is accidental or sporadic in nature. For instance, the motion of subatomic particles is considered random and unpredictable until science will be in a position to predict them. UFOs will remain unidentified (and sporadic in nature) unless a logical explanation is given. We are still in the weekend. Wait until Monday....

Keep the conversation going until it becomes boring and too circular!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> The Maker designed the natural phenomena into the universe, world, etc.



You keep referring to the Maker without offering any proof other than your faith. What if I told you that Trump designed the natural phenomena into the universe, world etc. because he knows better than his generals and only he could fix it?

(Matrix don't kill me please....)


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Shero said:


> No, no, argue, but you won't win, we can find some common ground though. The fish was great, I ate too much and had to have a nap. Had you come and brought some baklava (my favourite sweet), you would have sat at the head of the table!



Now you tell me! Thanks a lot..... friend!

We won't find common ground other than mutual respect for each other. Logic and faith have no common ground.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> We cannot have a conversation with your mind blown!
> 
> There is no negation where you see one. Science has a long way to go. Everything not explained by science, yet, is accidental or sporadic in nature. For instance, the motion of subatomic particles is considered random and unpredictable until science will be in a position to predict them. UFOs will remain unidentified (and sporadic in nature) unless a logical explanation is given. We are still in the weekend. Wait until Monday....
> 
> Keep the conversation going until it becomes boring and too circular!


I enjoy your manner of conversation. 

It seems to me science is your god.

Speaking of the weekend and waiting until Monday, brings to mind a topic for another thread, which would be on "Time."

I'm out and about for a bit, but shall return.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> I enjoy your manner of conversation.
> 
> It seems to me science is your god.
> 
> ...



If you read my OP again you will see that I went through the process of being horrified that Science is my God.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> You keep referring to the Maker without offering any proof other than your faith. What if I told you that Trump designed the natural phenomena into the universe, world etc. because he knows better than his generals and only he could fix it?
> 
> (Matrix don't kill me please....)


The proof is all around us - cause and effect, action and reaction. It all shouts loudly of a designer. Would you really try to debate that there is no design to the universe? Design equates to a creator.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> If you read my OP again you will see that I went through the process of being horrified that Science is my God.


My condolences.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> The proof is all around us - cause and effect, action and reaction. It all shouts loudly of a designer. Would you really try to debate that there is no design to the universe? Design equates to a creator.



Yes, I would try to debate that. Based on the fact that random birth or death of just about anything cannot be part of a design.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Yes, I would try to debate that. Based on the fact that random birth or death of just about anything cannot be part of a design.


So, in your mind, there is no design to the universe?


----------



## Capt Lightning (Sep 5, 2021)

A lot of this reminds me of my mother, a Scots Presbyterian who casually dismissed anything she could not rationally explain as "just God's way".


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> My condolences.



No need. Really. Science has not failed me and has been very trustworthy to me. Science is brave enough to admit its errors and mistakes without asking me to take the blame of having a wrong interpretation of a scripture.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> So, in your mind, there is no design to the universe?



Nope.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Capt Lightning said:


> A lot of this reminds me of my mother, a Scots Presbyterian who casually dismissed anything she could not rationally explain as "just God's way".



My friend, keep in mind that for the great majority of believers, God and Religion is their support system to cope with the unknown. Especially the fearsome end.


----------



## Capt Lightning (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> So, in your mind, there is no design to the universe?


Correct.  The universe is a violent, unpredictable place on a scale that is hard to imagine.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> My friend, keep in mind that for the great majority of believers, God and Religion is their support system to cope with the unknown. Especially the fearsome end.


And you know this how? Personal experience? IMO this is an old, tired chestnut.
If coping with the unknown is so troublesome to humanity, how do atheists and agnostics cope?


----------



## Capt Lightning (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> My friend, keep in mind that for the great majority of believers, God and Religion is their support system to cope with the unknown. Especially the fearsome end.


I agree with that, but it doesn't mean that they're correct.


----------



## Shero (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Now you tell me! Thanks a lot..... friend!
> 
> We won't find common ground other than mutual respect for each other. Logic and faith have no common ground.


Mutual respect is the key to any interaction, but do not assume I am not also logical. As second mate on a boat, my husband and I have to be, but also hope faith will steer our logic. Now I am off to play a game of chess and hope this time he does not win. Bonne nuit!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Capt Lightning said:


> I agree with that, but it doesn't mean that they're correct.


I won't argue with their being correct or not. Unfortunately I have _nothing_ to give them back, to fill the vacuum created by taking that support system away from them! That would be inhumane!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Shero said:


> Mutual respect is the key to any interaction, but do not assume I am not also logical. As second mate on a boat, my husband and I have to be, but also hope faith will steer our logic. Now I am off to play a game of chess and hope this time he does not win. Bonne nuit!



Bonne chance!


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> We won't find common ground other than mutual respect for each other. Logic and faith have no common ground.


I don't agree with the "_no common ground_" part.  I suspect you both believe in a lot of the morals we abide by, not killing or raping people for example.  What you see as your foundations for those beliefs may vary, but the result is the same.

I am no expert on religion but it seems to me if you take God's existence as fact then much of religion does become logical.  And science is full of "_laws_" we accept as fact when they are not provable beyond any doubt except in being consistent with observation.  Evolution, thermodynamics, even gravity are examples.  I come down on the science side of this, but can understand where religion is coming from.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> And you know this how? Personal experience? IMO this is an old, tired chestnut.
> If coping with the unknown is so troublesome to humanity, how do atheists and agnostics cope?



By observing older generations and reading through history of humanity. What could not be explained or what created fear to humans was automatically called a God or a God's action. Hope was found where none existed.

Ha! Talking about myself .... I don't do so well coping with the unknown, especially with the inevitable end. It would be nice if my logic wasn't so stubborn and allowed me some rest, thinking that I will continue my journey in a better place.


----------



## oldman (Sep 5, 2021)

I have been a Christian all my life. I don’t need proof of whether there is/was a creator. I have a very personal relationship with the Lord.
I see no need to announce to the world my beliefs or how I arrived at them.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I don't agree with the "_no common ground_" part.  I suspect you both believe in a lot of the morals we abide by, not killing or raping people for example.  What you see as your foundations for those beliefs may vary, but the result is the same.
> 
> I am no expert on religion but it seems to me if you take God's existence as fact then much of religion does become logical.  And science is full of "_laws_" we accept as fact when they are not provable beyond any doubt except in being consistent with observation.  Evolution, thermodynamics, even gravity are examples.  I come down on the science side of this, but can understand where religion is coming from.



I agree. When I talked about lack of common ground I referred to the debate on religion. To accept God's existence and the logic after that makes the debate a moot point.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

> Gardenlover said:
> So, in your mind, there is no design to the universe?





CAKCy said:


> Nope.


Interesting. Was the device you're using to communicate designed and created? Is that device not part of the universe?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

oldman said:


> I have been a Christian all my life. I don’t need proof of whether there is/was a creator. I have a very personal relationship with the Lord.
> I see no need to announce to the world my beliefs or how I arrived at them.



You are doing fine, Sir. For as long as you don't interfere with other people's beliefs/lives you have my blessings to continue living the way you have so far.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Interesting. Was the device you're using to communicate designed and created? Is not that device part of the universe?



Yes, it is. But to cut the long story short.... the universe itself was _not_ designed and created by God.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Yes, it is. But to cut the long story short.... the universe itself was _not_ designed and created by God.


I fail to grasp _any_ logic in that viewpoint.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> I fail to grasp _any_ logic in that viewpoint.



Yes you do. But you want to walk me on the straight line back to the design and creation of the universe.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> By observing older generations and reading through history of humanity. What could not be explained or what created fear to humans was automatically called a God or a God's action. Hope was found where none existed.
> 
> Ha! Talking about myself .... I don't do so well coping with the unknown, especially with the inevitable end. It would be nice if my logic wasn't so stubborn and allowed me some rest, thinking that I will continue my journey in a better place.


What is so bad about simply easing to be? 

I'm with The Bard on this one



> *“Cowards die many times before their deaths;
> The valiant never taste of death but once.
> Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
> It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
> ...



and with Frank Herbert



> _“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”_
> 
> 
> _Frank Herbert, Dune_


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Yes you do. But you want to walk me on the straight line back to the design and creation of the universe.


I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a straight line.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a straight line.



Make it any shape your want. It would still have a beginning and an end.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> What is so bad about simply easing to be?
> 
> I'm with The Bard on this one
> 
> ...



I'd rather not talk about it. 
It's not a simple easing to be, to me.
I lost people I loved and when I die I will lose people I love.
That's more pain that I care to think about.

(I know that's the destiny of every living thing but everyone carries their own cross. Let's say I'm not strong enough to carry mine...)


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Make it any shape your want. It would still have a beginning and an end.


Why is that? 

But that might be another topic of discussion - Time.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

And if the beginning and the end happen to be the same point?
If the universe is curved, might not time be circular?
Or some other closed curve?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Why is that?
> 
> But that might be another topic of discussion - Time.



That's my reply to another thread.


CAKCy said:


> The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe remains the same. Though it may be exchanged between the system and the surroundings, it can’t be created or destroyed. Until this is disproven, the narrator of the video is correct: Everything has always existed. What he doesn't say is whether the energy of the beginning (if we assume that energy was all there was) transformed into matter randomly (Big Bang) or by design (God). He also avoids to discuss whether there was anything before the energy existed.
> 
> If we try to explain this using plain human logic and working on a straight line we may not reach an answer. If we leave logic behind then we can have options like "God existed before the energy and he was the one who created it" or "We are not moving on a straight line but in circles. There was never a beginning and there won't ever be an end. The universe will transform from energy to matter and then back to energy over and over and over again". The problem with the latter is that science has given a time of the "beginning". I wonder if that is actually the time of the beginning of everything or just the beginning of this circle.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> And if the beginning and the end happen to be the same point?
> If the universe if curved, might not time be circular?
> Or some other closed curve?



That's my reply to another thread. 


CAKCy said:


> The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe remains the same. Though it may be exchanged between the system and the surroundings, it can’t be created or destroyed. Until this is disproven, the narrator of the video is correct: Everything has always existed. What he doesn't say is whether the energy of the beginning (if we assume that energy was all there was) transformed into matter randomly (Big Bang) or by design (God). He also avoids to discuss whether there was anything before the energy existed.
> 
> If we try to explain this using plain human logic and working on a straight line we may not reach an answer. If we leave logic behind then we can have options like "God existed before the energy and he was the one who created it" or "We are not moving on a straight line but in circles. There was never a beginning and there won't ever be an end. The universe will transform from energy to matter and then back to energy over and over and over again". The problem with the latter is that science has given a time of the "beginning". I wonder if that is actually the time of the beginning of everything or just the beginning of this circle.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> That's my reply to another thread. The first law of thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe remains the same. Doesn't this law (Conservation of Energy) only apply to closed systems? Now that the existence of black holes has been proven, can we still say that the universe is a closed system? Though it may be exchanged between the system and the surroundings, it can’t be created or destroyed. What surroundings? Again the question is whether or not there is anything beyond the known universe. Until this is disproven, the narrator of the video is correct: Everything has always existed. The big bang theory says something different. It proposes that time and space were formed instantaneously from nothing. Sounds to me quite like the creation doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo. This is not the same as saying that the universe has always existed i.e. infinite or eternal What he doesn't say is whether the energy of the beginning (if we assume that energy was all there was) I assume nothing. What is the current thinking of cosmologists? transformed into matter randomly (Big Bang) or by design (God). He also avoids to discuss whether there was anything before the energy existed. There is nothing random about the Big Bang. If anything existed before that it was the laws and constants of physics. These are the blueprints of this universe. If even one of the constants happened to be just a little bit different, the universe would not be what it is today. You say you are a scientist. May I ask which field of science?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 5, 2021)

First, I couldn't care less about what others believe, as long as they do not impose their beliefs on others.  For the sake of argument, those who believe in deities ought to be able to show some empirical proof that those deities exist. And the fact that some believe in deities is not proof that deities exist.
As an atheist, there is something that never seems to be addressed-and that is multiple deities. Most of the believer comments, in this forum, seem to reflect a Judeo/Christian concept of a god. But that is not the only god on the block. There are thousands of deities. I've often wondered how you explain the thousands of gods worshiped through out history, and the multitude of gods worshiped today. For the moment, one says, "This is the one true God.", it means all the other deities are false, and don't exist. And how does one prove the your deity is the one true deity?


----------



## Irwin (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> That's kind of a double-edged sword. While Hitchens solved the problem of the assertion "God exists" by dismissing it (since it's without proof) the atheist will find a trouble proving their assertion "God does not exist" which can similarly be dismissed.
> 
> Though it's a play of words or semantics it's important to follow the sequence of events. If a believer makes an assertion first, that assertion can be dismissed as per Hitchens. But if an atheist makes the assertion first he/she will find him/herself in deep waters.
> 
> ...


Actually, there is no evidence that God exists, but there is a sh*tload of evidence that he doesn't exist. Just look at all the disasters and evil going on in the world today. If there was a "god," would yada-yada (gender neutral pronoun) allow all that to happen?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

@Warrigal 



> Doesn't this law (Conservation of Energy) only apply to closed systems?



It also applies to open systems with the understanding that energy can be exchanged between the system and its surroundings. The net amount of energy remains the same (considering the change of energy into matter).



> Now that the existence of black holes has been proven, can we still say that the universe is a closed system?



We don't have to. The amount of energy even if it's transformed into matter with the absorption by the black holes still remains the same. 



> Again the question is whether or not there is anything beyond the known universe.



Unknown. Though hypotheses are there.



> The big bang theory says something different. It proposes that time and space were formed instantaneously from nothing. Sounds to me quite like the creation doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo. This is not the same as saying that the universe has always existed i.e. infinite or eternal



The Big Bang hypothesis says that there was a big explosion of energy of unknown source that created the universe and started its expansion.



> I assume nothing. What is the current thinking of cosmologists?





> There is nothing random about the Big Bang. If anything existed before that it was the laws and constants of physics. These are the blueprints of this universe. If even one of the constants happened to be just a little bit different, the universe would not be what it is today.



Agreed. The laws and constants of physics part of which is still unknown to us. The term "Blueprints of this universe" implies that the design was already in place. This is your opinion.



> You say you are a scientist. May I ask which field of science?


I've studied Civil Engineering and Computer Science. 

For reference:
The Universe and Beyond (utah.edu)


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Actually, there is no evidence that God exists, but there is a sh*tload of evidence that he doesn't exist. Just look at all the disasters and evil going on in the world today. If there was a "god," would yada-yada (gender neutral pronoun) allow all that to happen?



The disasters and the evil going on in the world today are part of "God's Plan" or "God's Will". That's their reply. It is _not _a proof that God does not exist.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

fuzzybuddy said:


> First, I couldn't care less about what others believe, as long as they do not impose their beliefs on others.



Thank you for your input! 

I applaud your stance. It is very similar (if not identical) to mine. I'm also after those who use Religion as the means to have personal gains or to control the masses.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".
> 
> Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.
> 
> A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.


I believe there are two types of Atheists -- those who believe that god doesn't exist and those who don't believe that god exists.  The first is stronger than the second.  It's like saying, "I believe there's no life on other planets," vs. " I don't believe there's life on other planets."

At any rate there are _*some *_Atheists of the first type who won't give you the time of day in discussion of the belief; absolutely nothing is going to seep in that might change their minds; for them it's an absolute fact.  This falls under your definition of atheism as a religion.  There are many Atheists of the first type who have open minds about it.  I'm of the first type, but am not dogmatic about it.  If you can prove to me god exists, I'll change my belief.  And I know it's a belief, not a fact.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Murrmurr said:


> I'm gonna disagree with your definition of Atheism. I don't agree that Atheism is one who can prove there is no god. As you probably know, the word Atheist is from the Greek word atheos, meaning "without god(s)". Atheos does not mean "having proof of no god(s)".
> 
> Atheists do not believe that a deity (or deities) exist. To be called an Atheist, you aren't required to prove the non-existence of a deity, just as a Believer is not required to prove its existence in order to be called a Believer.
> 
> A fellow Atheist once asked me, "Since all of our morals have their basis in religion, if religion never existed, would there be such a thing as morals?" To me, that's the same thing as asking "Are we inherently immoral?" I don't think we are, but I have no proof. I can assume that "untouched" tribes (say, in deepest Africa or Central America, for example) live by a moral code, but I don't know that for sure.


Having studied cultural anthropology and a goodly number of those tribes while they still existed as independent groups, I can tell you that they all had moral codes.  We may not have agreed with some of their precepts, but they all had them.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I'm also an atheist. While I agree with Murrmurr that literally atheism does not mean  "proof' of non-existence of a deity". It does seem to imply that there is some justification for not believing in a deity. If many , around you, believe in a deity, you do have to have a reason not to believe.
> And a pet opinion is that man has an innate "moral" code. You don't have to read it in a book how to feel when someone steals from you, disrespects you, or does harm to you. And conversely, you know instinctively that doing  those activities are not welcome. The concept of "mine' and  "yours" is a common animal trait.


I say this to people:

"If I suddenly developed a belief in god, I wouldn't go around raping and pillaging. 

"If you suddenly lost your belief in god, that means you'll go around raping and pillaging since you'll also have lost your moral code.  Correct?"


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I wasn't exposed to any religion growing up. I came from a non-religious Jewish family that celebrated Christmas and lit a menorah on Hanukkah, but there no prayers or anything like that. They were just secular holidays to us.
> 
> My relatives were more traditional Jews. My cousins all had bar mitzvah rituals (I didn't have any female cousins). I visited them a few times and it was somewhat alluring in that it seemed like a stabilizing practice that brought the family together. They were a close knit family, and still are. The three brothers are successful and with families of their own. One's a doctor, one's a lawyer, and one's in finance.
> 
> ...


You'd probably like the book "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright.  Paul was a fantastic marketer; any present-day company would do all in its power to hire him.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> Having studied cultural anthropology and a goodly number of those tribes while they still existed as independent groups, I can tell you that they all had moral codes.  We may not have agreed with some of their precepts, but they all had them.



Thank you for joining in!

Have those tribes had a religion or a deity they believed in? If, yes how dependent was their moral code on their religion?


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> That and the lack of evidence that there is not a God (or Gods) is what makes me feel mostly agnostic.



And there never will be as you can't prove a negative.   We all have to have faith in something; most of us have faith in many things.  One of mine is that there is no god.  I know, though, that the onus of proof is on those who believe there is one since, as I said, you can't prove a negative.  I've read plenty of philosophical "proofs" on both sides; as far as I'm concerned, they're all bolderdash.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> If you can prove to me god exists, I'll change my belief. And I know it's a belief, not a fact.



If one can prove to you that god exists doesn't that make it automatically a fact? Furthermore if one can prove to you that god exists wouldn't it make sense for one to be able to prove the same to everybody?


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Or, your very existence (and mine) is clear evidence that God does exist.


Why?  Why does god need to exist for me to exist?  Science has perfectly good alternative explanations.


----------



## Lara (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> Why?  Why does god need to exist for me to exist?  Science has perfectly good alternative explanations.


Buckeye is talking about the creation of your existence. Science, as you said, has "alternative explanations", not proof.
'


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Sorry, but no.  There is no life without God's presence.  Your belief in God or your "logic" is not a requirement for his presence.


You're stating this as a fact rather than as an opinion, Buckeye.  Facts have a basis in something that has no alternative explanation; opinions don't necessarily have to.  Does you statement have a basis in anything that has no alternative explanation?  If not, it's an opinion.

I believe there isn't a god.  I know there alternative explanations for our existence; therefore, no matter what my belief, I have no problem admitting that this is an opinion.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> What difference does it make?
> 
> What is the harm in accepting another person’s religious beliefs.
> 
> ...


Wahoooooo!


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> I did read your thread @CAKCy  I don't agree of course but it's a good thread. I enjoyed reading it.
> 
> @raybar , Here are some examples of evidence you asked for. There is good and evil all around us. Look for the good, for the amazing, for the incredible, for the beautiful, for the magnificent, for the love, for the joy, for the kindness, and you will see God's handiwork. That's evidence and so much more...
> 
> You're in California...stare at the ocean, see all the shades of blue and emerald green, see the beauty of the sunrise and sunset, the dolphins jumping playfully out of the water and communicating, the horizon, the stars. Feel the mighty power of the waves, sand under your feet, the ocean breeze, smell the salt air, bend down to touch a starfish and remember the the entire living ecosystem beneath the surface of the water. Take a deep breath and feel good about being alive. Who gave you the nose and lungs to be able to do that? hmm, who is this intelligent designer? A big chaotic bang? A mud puddle? Where did all the energy come from?


I can see alternative explanations for all of this.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> That means that I changed my original categorization to include a group of people like yourself who had first-hand personal experiences in their relation with God and are convinced that God exists because of them and not because of "hearsay" i.e. by listening to others or by reading the scripture. I'm glad you think it's good!


Or with something neurological.  All of these things can be explained neurologically.  Which happened in this particular case?  I don't know.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Capt Lightning said:


> It's all too easy to see the world through 'Rose tinted glasses' and associate this with a god who created it.  It however ignores the bad things in the world..  I'm not talking about man made problems, but what about disease, what about children born with deformities or incurable illness ?
> If this 'god' created the good things, then surely he/she/it must be equally responsible for the bad.
> 
> Come to think about it, why did this 'god' even bother creating a universe 13+  billion years ago.  Why did things go through millions of years of evolution.  Why were the dinosaurs killed off?  How many versions of hominoids were created before homo sapiens evolved?
> ...


And this is the hypocrisy (as I see it) of the "clockmaker" belief.  Why just stop with god?


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> I believe we already know when the beginning of time was...when the sun and the moon were created, giving us day and night...thus "time".
> That was for our benefit, to have light by day and moon light by night for navigation. And no, that knowledge is not going to make believers cease in believing in God.


Are you saying that everything from the big bang until the Earth was created occurred before the beginning of time?  _For one thing_, life on Earth is possible only because of the elements found here, almost all of which were created by the explosions of stars; did this occur before time began?


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> "All the gaps" will never be eliminated because that would eliminate "faith".  God wants to be loved through our faith in Him.
> You ask "will we ever find the ultimate source of existence? I believe we have...God's creation. Did you mean, who created God? I believe he wasn't created. He just is and always will be existing. We can't understand for now because our brains aren't able.


Good for you, Lara!  You understand the difference between belief and fact, something that, unfortunately, others in this thread don't.  I'm an atheist.  I also know this is my belief.  Since it's a belief, I'd never tell someone who believes as you do that you're wrong.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> Good post #96 raybar but it's my belief that Scripture may be misinterpreted, but it will never be wrong. When fallible science does not correspond with fallible theology, I don't blame the Bible. The scientific assumptions may be wrong, or the biblical interpretations may be wrong, or both, but the Scriptures never are in my belief. An unfortunate tendency in atheism is to compare science to a single interpretation of the Bible, then declare science has “proved” the Bible incorrect. This, in my opinion, is illogical. At the most, all that might be disproved is that particular interpretation of Scripture.
> 
> I have faith that God’s written Word is the final authority in all matters that it addresses. Yet it's not always specific on all points. The exact age of the earth and the minute details of how God created it are among those issues left vague in Scripture.
> 
> There are reasons to doubt prevailing views of the fossil record. The fields of paleontology and fossils are highly prone to error. In the last century, we have witnessed countless examples of “groundbreaking” discoveries that have ultimately been proved misleading.


I'm not commenting on your post, Lara, just making a statement.  

Most of what we read about scientific "discoveries" wasn't written by scientists; it was written by media people who are trying to get us to read/buy/whatever.  They have to make a splash and do so by coming up with stuff that scientists would never say.  Science works by finding something, publishing it, commenting on it, and then watching as others try to debunk whatever was suggested.  Often these suggestions are just thoughts about possibilities.  But the media jump.  That's probably the main reason that people get the wrong impression of what science has actually found and believe that it's all over the place.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Have those tribes had a religion or a deity they believed in? If, yes how dependent was their moral code on their religion?


I don't think religion has not always been tied to morals in the sense that the Abrahamic religions are.   I am sure there is a lot of variability but moral codes and religion does not necessarily go hand in hand.

Its my understanding (not a expert here) that the ancient Romans and Greeks believed their Gods only expected devotion, proper sacrifice and the like.  Do that and your life would be better, it would rain or you would be victorious in battle or whatever.  Their Gods cared less about how you behaved otherwise.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I don't think religion has not always been tied to morals in the sense that the Abrahamic religions are.   I am sure there is a lot of variability but moral codes and religion does not necessarily go hand in hand.
> 
> Its my understanding (not a expert here) that the ancient Romans and Greeks believed their Gods only expected devotion, proper sacrifice and the like.  Do that and your life would be better, it would rain or you would be victorious in battle or whatever.  Their Gods cared less about how you behaved otherwise.



@Dancing_Queen is a cultural anthropologist. It was my chance to get some information from a scientist re the tribes.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Where is the proof that love exists?
> Dawkins posits that love is merely the action of the "selfish gene", however he never actually  identified the location of that particular gene on any particular chromosome.
> 
> Some things that are neither matter nor energy do exist - I assert that love does indeed exist.
> ...


This isn't what he meant by "selfish gene:"

"MR. DAWKINS: The phrase "the selfish gene" only means that genes are selfish. It doesn't mean that individual organisms are. On the contrary, one of the main messages of the selfish gene is that selfish genes can program altruistic behavior in organisms. Organisms can behave altruistically towards other organisms -- the better to forward the propagation of their own selfish genes. What you cannot have is a gene that sacrifices itself for the benefit of other genes. What you can have is a gene that makes organisms sacrifice themselves for other organisms under the influence of selfish genes."

https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html

He never said that there's a particular "selfish gene."


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> The proof is all around us - cause and effect, action and reaction. It all shouts loudly of a designer. Would you really try to debate that there is no design to the universe? Design equates to a creator.


I'd absolutely debate it and am doing so along with others.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> And you know this how? Personal experience? IMO this is an old, tired chestnut.
> If coping with the unknown is so troublesome to humanity, how do atheists and agnostics cope?


Not a problem at all.  Here's some research on the subject.  I post it _solely _for the purpose of explaining some of ways:

*How atheists cope*
_
But _how _do these worldviews help in times of crisis? Most frequently, the respondents said they helped cope with the situation, reduced anxiety, created an increased feeling of control and sense of order, and explained or gave meaning to the situation.

Many participants indicated that understanding a difficult situation proved paramount to accepting it and coping with it. One said that “understanding the process of loss and moving on via understanding psychology helps”. Others stated that “my belief in science explained what was happening and I also trusted in modern medicine that we could overcome it”, or that it helped to consider that “depression [is] a condition that responds to time and care”.

What this research suggests is that worldviews and beliefs, whether religious or secular, can provide comfort and meaning in even the very toughest situations._


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/how-atheists-cope-times-crisis-156506


----------



## Murrmurr (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> Having studied cultural anthropology and a goodly number of those tribes while they still existed as independent groups, I can tell you that they all had moral codes.  We may not have agreed with some of their precepts, but they all had them.


Yes, there's a lot of evidence (imo) showing that morality was a part of life before organized religions were.


----------



## carouselsilver (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> With all due respect, the idea that morals are based on religion is wrong. There have been times when religion was not a part of the game (for instance when Sun was considered to be a deity) yet morals existed as a common understanding and agreement of what a society needed. (That's why morals are so volatile. Because times change, society changes and along with it, its morals)


I agree on this point. Just take a look at how people behaved when COVID was just ramping up. Folks who saw themselves as good, fair minded, and generous, suddenly began hogging resources, such as toilet paper and hand sanitizer. Once those things became available again, it was easy to go back to their former behavior.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

carouselsilver said:


> I agree on this point. Just take a look at how people behaved when COVID was just ramping up. Folks who saw themselves as good, fair minded, and generous, suddenly began hogging resources, such as toilet paper and hand sanitizer. Once those things became available again, it was easy to go back to their former behavior.



The volatility of human behavior (and on a larger scale of morals) is well documented. In times of crisis people may reach the point of becoming inhuman (believers or not).


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> @Warrigal
> 
> 
> 
> ...







CAKCy said:


> I've studied Civil Engineering and Computer Science.
> 
> For reference:
> The Universe and Beyond (utah.edu)





> There is nothing random about the Big Bang. If anything existed before that it was the laws and constants of physics. These are the blueprints of this universe. If even one of the constants happened to be just a little bit different, the universe would not be what it is today.



Agreed. The laws and constants of physics part of which is still unknown to us. The term "Blueprints of this universe" implies that the design was already in place. This is your opinion.

We also don't know what the laws of physics are in any other previous or current universe.  It's highly possible that other universes existed before the Big Bang and that other universes exist concurrently with ours.  The laws in those universes may be just right for the type of "life" that came into existence in them.  In other words, we exist as we do because of the laws in this universe; if the laws weren't "just right," we might be existing differently.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Thank you for joining in!
> 
> Have those tribes had a religion or a deity they believed in? If, yes how dependent was their moral code on their religion?


All had.  It was the way of explaining the unknown.  Everyone in a given group had the same belief system and each group had its own code depending upon the "wishes" of the diety/dieties involved.  Except for the fact that groups aren't necessarily homogeneous in their beliefs, the same is true today -- the moral code is based upon the belief of what the wishes of the diety/dieties are.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> All had.  It was the way of explaining the unknown.  Everyone in a given group had the same belief system and each group had its own code depending upon the "wishes" of the diety/dieties involved.  Except for the fact that groups aren't necessarily homogeneous in their beliefs, the same is true today -- the moral code is based upon the belief of what the wishes of the diety/dieties are.



Thank you for your reply! (and all of the "hard work" you had to do going through this thread)


----------



## Sunny (Sep 5, 2021)

Part of the problem is that in most people's minds, "God" equates with a heavenly Father, similar to a loving parent, or sometimes a cruel tyrant, who is very human in "his" thinking and actions. And usually, not even a nice human being. More someone to be feared. And if you pray hard enough, maybe he'll listen to you and grant you your wishes.

But what if God is a mathematical equation or a scientific principle? Something so obscure and beyond human comprehension that it is pointless to even discuss it?  

As an atheist, I'd find that kind of explanation a little easier to accept than the "fatherly" description found in most religions.  Look at the size of the universe. We can't even conceive of it. The number of stars (or is it the number of galaxies?) is on the order of the number of grains of sand on all the beaches on earth.  Trillions and trillions. We can't imagine such a number.

So, to me it makes no sense to suggest that the "ruler" of that indescribably enormous universe is particularly interested in us, the little microbes crawling around on a very small, ordinary planet (among billions of planets).  It just comes across to me as human egotism, nothing more.

And the fact that people living thousands of years ago made up a lot of fairy tales about it, and then demanded that we believe them and live our lives accordingly, just proves how easily people can be frightened into believing nonsense. Many religions believe that if a child is indoctrinated early enough with the tenets of that religion, they will be under its control for life.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Lara said:


> Buckeye is talking about the creation of your existence. Science, as you said, has "alternative explanations", not proof.
> '


I never said science had proof.  There's the difference.  I acknowledge that my beliefs are beliefs, not necessarily fact.  What I did say, though, is that science has alternative explanations; this means that both theological and atheistic beliefs are exactly that -- beliefs.  Neither can be said to be factual.  

Facts are the only things that exist without other (conceivable) explanations.  At this point that means Olm's Law, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.  That's what the word "law" means in science.  They've been proven (not just accepted) with *no *statistical probability that any chance was involved.  Everything else is a work in progress even if there's only a .001 percent statistical probability that the result could have occurred by chance.  Laws can be amended, however, such as when Newton's Laws were amended to hold true for large objects as opposed to everything; at this point we now have quantum mechanics. 

Because I have neither proof (100% statistical probability) nor an accepted hypothesis (no more than .5% statistical probability of chance), I accept the fact that I can be wrong.  That's also how science works.  Gather the data and run the statistics and keep doing it many times in many ways, something that's impossible when looking at the existence or non-existence of god.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Thank you for your reply! (and all of the "hard work" you had to do going through this thread)


And I thank you for starting it and giving me that mental work.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Sunny said:


> Part of the problem is that in most people's minds, "God" equates with a heavenly Father, similar to a loving parent, or sometimes a cruel tyrant, who is very human in "his" thinking and actions. And usually, not even a nice human being. More someone to be feared. And if you pray hard enough, maybe he'll listen to you and grant you your wishes.
> 
> But what if God is a mathematical equation or a scientific principle? Something so obscure and beyond human comprehension that it is pointless to even discuss it?
> 
> ...



According to Neil DeGrasse Tyson (Director of the Hayden Planetarium):

_“There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on any beach, more stars than seconds have passed since Earth formed, more stars than words and sounds ever uttered by all the humans who ever lived.”_

http://www.marietta.com/neil-degrasse-tysons-the-cosmic-perspective

I just picked the first example that came up of the many with this quote.  I've been binging on his videos.  He's brilliant, funny, and a fantastic science communicator.


----------



## Mitch86 (Sep 5, 2021)

I believe in Jesus because His music makes me feel good as shown in this playlist:

https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXlEVp8uHTXWQWfqT5eInJUe3C2TgrB6v&feature=share

However, I am also pretty sure that we are created by the merger of a sperm cell and an egg cell and, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST. Thus, I use BOTH belief systems for how the one can make me feel better and the other assures me that all pain and suffering will also cease to exist when we die.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 5, 2021)

Still, no one can elicit undeniable proof of a deity's existence. The fact that we exist only proves that we exist.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> The disasters and the evil going on in the world today are part of "God's Plan" or "God's Will". That's their reply. It is _not _a proof that God does not exist.


While it may not be "proof," it certainly is evidence that there is no God. 

If we accept the premise that supernatural beings exist, the disasters and the evil perpetrated in the world could be used as convincing evidence that there is a devil and if there is also a God, that the devil is more powerful.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 5, 2021)

I have enjoyed reading this thread, very interesting.   We (or many of us) have been using the agnostic and atheist labels so I decided to look up definitions:

*Atheism*_ - The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist, and that personal subjective religious experiences say something about the human experience rather than the nature of reality itself; therefore, one has no reason to believe that a god exists._

_Positive atheism (also called "strong atheism" and "hard atheism") is a form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist. The strong atheist explicitly asserts the non-existence of gods._
_Negative atheism (also called "weak atheism" and "soft atheism") is any type of atheism other than positive, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none._
_*Agnosticism* is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism does not define one's belief or disbelief in gods; agnostics may still identify themselves as theists or atheists._

_Strong agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist._
_Weak agnosticism is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable._
_from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God_

I think I am either a strong agnostic or a weak atheist.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

I'm still not sure about black holes. I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that they are a bit leaky with respect to the sum of the matter and energy equation. A black hole is a singularity and singularities don't always stick to what we know about thermodynamics. The equation start to get a bit haywire. Most of this is beyond y understanding so I'm throwing this up without endorsing it. Does it make sense to you, and if it does, could you explain it in very simple language?



> Black Hole Information Paradox​The black hole information paradox is a puzzle resulting from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Calculations suggest that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing many physical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a core precept of modern physics—that, in principle, the value of a wave function of a physical system at one point in time should determine its value at any other time. A fundamental postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function up to when the wave function collapses. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense.
> 
> Civil Engineering and Computer Science, eh? Mine was Mathematics and Chemistry with a smidgen of Geology and introductory Computer Science and Programming. I'll come to you when I want to pick your brains on the subject of quantum computing.





Dancing_Queen said:


> This isn't what he meant by "selfish gene:"
> 
> "MR. DAWKINS: The phrase "the selfish gene" only means that genes are selfish. It doesn't mean that individual organisms are. On the contrary, one of the main messages of the selfish gene is that selfish genes can program altruistic behavior in organisms. Organisms can behave altruistically towards other organisms -- the better to forward the propagation of their own selfish genes. What you cannot have is a gene that sacrifices itself for the benefit of other genes. What you can have is a gene that makes organisms sacrifice themselves for other organisms under the influence of selfish genes."
> 
> ...


Yes, I did read his book years ago and I thought it very speculative at the time. In terms of the scientific method it was just an hypothesis without a lot of rigour behind it. I thought it to be on a par with The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris - pop science IMO. Unlike Rachel Carson's book, The Silent Spring, neither of the former works seems to have gone anywhere to date.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> I say this to people:
> 
> "If I suddenly developed a belief in god, I wouldn't go around raping and pillaging.
> 
> "If you suddenly lost your belief in god, that means you'll go around raping and pillaging since you'll also have lost your moral code.  Correct?"


Reductio ad absurdum. Well done

I have been both atheist and practising Christian and my moral code hasn't changed much. What change that has occurred is due mostly to maturity. I have grown more tolerant and less judgemental over time.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> Why?  Why does god need to exist for me to exist?  Science has perfectly good alternative explanations.


I stood in a church twenty years ago to hear an ordained minister state: "If we say there is a god, there is a god. If we say there is no god there is no god"!

It sounded sacrilegious, (if I heard him correctly), and suggests man creates god rather than the other way around, but there is perhaps an alternative possibility to consider(?).

In the act of people believing in something outside of themselves, and joining together, a process is put in place whereby the world changes, (at the very least changes from a world where no one believes in anything outside themselves).

Is that profound or foolish, (you decide!)?

Whilst doing so it may be worth pondering this: "I'm sure even the most atheistic person on the planet has probably experienced love, and can't fully explain it."


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> I'm still not sure about black holes. I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that they are a bit leaky with respect to the sum of the matter and energy equation. A black hole is a singularity and singularities don't always stick to what we know about thermodynamics. The equation start to get a bit haywire. Most of this is beyond y understanding so I'm throwing this up without endorsing it. Does it make sense to you, and if it does, could you explain it in very simple language?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be clear -- I have absolutely no love of Richard Dawkins.  

Just an aside -- "Silent Spring" didn't go anywhere until "Moonrise," which is a misnomer, was published.  That picture of what the astronauts saw when they came around from the back side of the moon spawned the environmental movement as the Earth was seen in a completely new light.  At least this is what Neil DeGrasse Tyson had to say on the subject.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 5, 2021)

grahamg said:


> I stood in a church twenty years ago to hear an ordained minister state: "If we say there is a god, there is a god. If we say there is no god there is no god"!
> 
> It sounded sacrilegious, (if I heard him correctly), and suggests man creates god rather than the other way around, but there is perhaps an alternative possibility to consider(?).
> 
> ...


I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not there's a god, Graham.  Can you please explain?  If nothing else, love is a physiological condition; the state of the neurochemicals in our bodies can be measured although I don't see what this has to do with whether or not there's a god.  If the question is, "Why does a person love one person or pet or whatever and not another?"  That's a different question.  But that, too, doesn't _seem to me_ to fit your statement.


----------



## Gardenlover (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> I'd absolutely debate it and am doing so along with others.


Debate away on the device that was designed and created by humans, which is, by the way, part of the universe. Simple I know, but proves without a doubt that there is design and creation within the universe.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 5, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> To be clear -- I have absolutely no love of Richard Dawkins.
> 
> Just an aside -- "Silent Spring" didn't go anywhere until "Moonrise," which is a misnomer, was published.  That picture of what the astronauts saw when they came around from the back side of the moon spawned the environmental movement as the Earth was seen in a completely new light.  At least this is what Neil DeGrasse Tyson had to say on the subject.


I first heard of Rachel Carson when I was a chemistry student in the mid 1980s (I was a mature age student) The topic was DDT and other organochlorines like dieldrin and aldrin. By that time her work had been vindicated. I had to submit a library research assignment on the effects of organochlorines on non target species. My subject was DDT and chickens. Riveting stuff.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Mitch86 said:


> I believe in Jesus because His music makes me feel good as shown in this playlist:
> 
> https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXlEVp8uHTXWQWfqT5eInJUe3C2TgrB6v&feature=share
> 
> However, I am also pretty sure that we are created by the merger of a sperm cell and an egg cell and, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST. Thus, I use BOTH belief systems for how the one can make me feel better and the other assures me that all pain and suffering will also cease to exist when we die.



That's the important part! Keep enjoying your music and let it brighten your day! One could take valuable lessons from your life!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> I'm still not sure about black holes. I have it somewhere in the back of my mind that they are a bit leaky with respect to the sum of the matter and energy equation. A black hole is a singularity and singularities don't always stick to what we know about thermodynamics. The equation start to get a bit haywire. Most of this is beyond y understanding so I'm throwing this up without endorsing it. Does it make sense to you, and if it does, could you explain it in very simple language?



Nobody is sure about black holes. Yet. Our knowledge of physics, when it comes to black holes, is, to this point, not complete. From my understanding and after the discovery of Hawking's radiation (black holes emitting radiation despite previous theories that wanted black holes to be perfect absorbers) they seem to obey the laws of thermodynamics as we know them. In simple terms: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy (in its original form or in a changed form or in matter) cannot be destroyed or created. The problem with black holes until Hawking's discovery was that the hypothesis that they were perfect absorbers were a reason for a "leak" (as you said) i.e. matter and energy would go in and be destroyed. Hawking's discovery of his radiation showed that a black hole is actually emitting a form of energy (radiation) that obeys the first law.

I don't feel very comfortable with astrophysics but you can give it a go yourself here:

The Thermodynamics of Black Holes (nih.gov)

and here

Towards Gravitational Wave Astronomy (ox.ac.uk)



> Civil Engineering and Computer Science, eh? Mine was Mathematics and Chemistry with a smidgen of Geology and introductory Computer Science and Programming. I'll come to you when I want to pick your brains on the subject of quantum computing.



I'll do my best to understand what is available and help, if I can!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

Irwin said:


> While it may not be "proof," it certainly is evidence that there is no God.
> 
> If we accept the premise that supernatural beings exist, the disasters and the evil perpetrated in the world could be used as convincing evidence that there is a devil and if there is also a God, that the devil is more powerful.



I have many questions re God and Religion myself but I don't want to bring them out in the open. As I said: Taking away from someone their support system with nothing given back is inhumane.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 5, 2021)

Grahamg wrote:
"Saying there's a god, means there's a god, saying there's no god means there's no god", (according to minister twenty years ago),.., do you agree?


Dancing_Queen said:


> I don't understand what this has to do with whether or not there's a god, Graham.  Can you please explain?  If nothing else, love is a physiological condition; the state of the neurochemicals in our bodies can be measured although I don't see what this has to do with whether or not there's a god.  If the question is, "Why does a person love one person or pet or whatever and not another?"  That's a different question.  But that, too, doesn't _seem to me_ to fit your statement.


Should I be surprised you did not choose to respond to the possibly more profound question?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

grahamg said:


> Grahamg wrote:
> "Saying there's a god, means there's a god, saying there's no god means there's no god", (according to minister twenty years ago),.., do you agree?
> 
> Should I be surprised you did not choose to respond to the possibly more profound question?



I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I understand the process of people joining together believing in the existence of God as you explained it below:


grahamg said:


> In the act of people believing in something outside of themselves, and joining together, a process is put in place whereby the world changes, (at the very least changes from a world where no one believes in anything outside themselves).



Has truth no role at all in this? Meaning is it OK to believe in something even if it's not a fact? Doesn't this lead to mass hysteria and evil actions e.g. 9/11)?


----------



## grahamg (Sep 5, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I'm not sure I follow the logic here. I understand the process of people joining together believing in the existence of God as you explained it below:
> Has truth no role at all in this? Meaning is it OK to believe in something even if it's not a fact? Doesn't this lead to mass hysteria and evil actions e.g. 9/11)?


Let's try to consider truth certainly, and using the "love means/is biochemical changes in the brain" thinking posted above, I believe you've added an insight into those words I quoted, spoken by an ordained minister, twenty years ago.
People "saying there is a god", etc.,etc.,etc., the act of people saying that there is something outside of themselves, (asserting a position no complete atheist can assert), changes those people, the way they interact with one another, "what happens in their brains", and arguably the whole world, (strange as it might seem!).


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 5, 2021)

grahamg said:


> Let's try to consider truth certainly, and using the "love means/is biochemical changes in the brain" thinking posted above, I believe you've added an insight into those words I quoted, spoken by an ordained minister, twenty years ago.
> People "saying there is a god", etc.,etc.,etc., the act of people saying that there is something outside of themselves, (asserting a position no complete atheist can assert), changes those people, the way they interact with one another, "what happens in their brains", and arguably the whole world, (strange as it might seem!).



Agreed! The problem I see is that the same thing exactly can happen with any piece of information, no matter whether it's true or not, with unknown consequences e.g. Fake news...


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Agreed! The problem I see is that the same thing exactly can happen with any piece of information, no matter whether it's true or not, with unknown consequences e.g. Fake news...


That may not be a good comparison, (not entirely sure?).
The simple difference between an avowed atheist, and some one who says they are a believer in god, (be they devote or wavering), is that one is absolutely certain there is nothing outside of themselves, whilst the other side believes there is or may be. 
This "buy in" to their being something to consider we dont control, or may indeed something knowing us and understand our thoughts and ultimate fate, and how this may "change our brains", to keep coming back to the phrase, isn't the same is it as your comparison(?).
Is anyone going to worship "Fake News", (no matter how taken in they may be)?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> That may not be a good comparison, (not entirely sure?).
> The simple difference between an avowed atheist, and some one who says they are a believer in god, (be they devote or wavering), is that one is absolutely certain there is nothing outside of themselves, whilst the other side believes there is or may be.
> This "buy in" to their being something to consider we dont control, or may indeed something knowing us and understand our thoughts and ultimate fate, and how this may "change our brains", to keep coming back to the phrase, isn't the same is it as your comparison(?).
> Is anyone going to worship "Fake News", (no matter how taken in they may be)?



I'm not afraid of "worshipping" fake news. I'm afraid of the mass acting because of fake news believed to be true e.g. January 6 incursion. At the end of the date the "change in their brains" you see (and factually occurs) because of a religion is very similar to the one occurring because of any piece of information, be it good or evil.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I'm not afraid of "worshipping" fake news. I'm afraid of the mass acting because of fake news believed to be true e.g. January 6 incursion. At the end of the date the "change in their brains" you see (and factually occurs) because of a religion is very similar to the one occurring because of any piece of information, be it good or evil.


I dont think you are looking deeply enough if you compare just about anything to a religion, (changing brains or not!).
The other things can certainly be worrying, no question there, but religions are different aren't they, intended to be guides for us all to live by etc., as well as the concept of a "presence" of some kind.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> I dont think you are looking deeply enough if you compare just about anything to a religion, (changing brains or not!).
> The other things can certainly be worrying, no question there, but religions are different aren't they, intended to be guides for us all to live by etc., as well as the concept of a "presence" of some kind.



Maybe you are right. I think I shouldn't continue debating this. 
I respect your beliefs and your right to have them for as long as you do not try to impose them on anybody else or try to have personal gains from them.
You are a good person, Sir, and any further debate would be violating my principles.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Maybe you are right. I think I shouldn't continue debating this.
> I respect your beliefs and your right to have them for as long as you do not try to impose them on anybody else or try to have personal gains from them.
> You are a good person, Sir, and any further debate would be violating my principles.


I think we'd got as far as we could too, and you can rest assured my evangelising days, such as they were, are long behind me!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> I think we'd got as far as we could too, and you can rest assured my evangelising days, such as they were, are long behind me!


I wish all evangelizing was practiced by people like you, Sir!


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I wish all evangelizing was practiced by people like you, Sir!


I must say I prefer preachers who try to "show me the way", rather than those implying they need to "tell me the way", (if you see what I mean).
Btw my evangelising lasted one hour approximately, (to the already converted, which helps!)


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> I must say I prefer preachers who try to "show me the way", rather than those implying they need to "tell me the way", (if you see what I mean).
> Btw my evangelising lasted one hour approximately, (to the already converted, which helps!)



Showing the way is letting someone choose whether they like to go down that path or not.
Telling the way is like commanding someone to do it.

That's how I could tell what a gentle soul you are!


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Showing the way is letting someone choose whether they like to go down that path or not.
> Telling the way is like commanding someone to do it.
> That's how I could tell what a gentle soul you are!


Good job you didn't watch me responding the an arrogant driver yesterday!


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Nobody is sure about black holes. Yet. Our knowledge of physics, when it comes to black holes, is, to this point, not complete. From my understanding and after the discovery of Hawking's radiation (black holes emitting radiation despite previous theories that wanted black holes to be perfect absorbers) they seem to obey the laws of thermodynamics as we know them. In simple terms: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy (in its original form or in a changed form or in matter) cannot be destroyed or created. The problem with black holes until Hawking's discovery was that the hypothesis that they were perfect absorbers were a reason for a "leak" (as you said) i.e. matter and energy would go in and be destroyed. Hawking's discovery of his radiation showed that a black hole is actually emitting a form of energy (radiation) that obeys the first law.
> 
> I don't feel very comfortable with astrophysics but you can give it a go yourself here:
> 
> ...



This might help:  



 .  It seems to be a _SOMEWHAT _simple explanation of Hawking Radiation.


----------



## spectratg (Sep 6, 2021)

The God of Spinoza (and Einstein):

_"Stop praying and beating yourself on the chest.
Have fun, love, sing and enjoy all that this world can give you.
I don't want you to visit the cold and dark temples that you say are my home!
My home is not in a temple, but in the mountains, forests, rivers, lakes and beaches. That's where my home is and that's where I express my love.
Don't be fooled by written texts about me: if you want to get close Look at me at a beautiful landscape, try to feel the wind and the heat on your skin.
Don't ask me anything, I don't have the power to change your life, you do.
Don't be afraid, I don't judge and I don't criticize, I don't dispense punishments.
Do not believe those who simplify me in simple rules to respect: those only serve to make you feel inadequate and guilty for what you do, they serve to keep you under control.
Do not always think about the world after death and do not believe that it is there that you will know true beauty: this world has to offer you so much of that beauty, and it is only up to you to discover it.
Do not think that I set you rules: you are the only owner of life, and you decide what to do with them.
No one can tell what is after death, but facing each day as if it were the last chance to love, rejoice and do whatever it takes will help you live better.
I don't want you to believe in me because someone strongly claims that I exist, but I want you to always feel me in you and around you. "_


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> Grahamg wrote:
> "Saying there's a god, means there's a god, saying there's no god means there's no god", (according to minister twenty years ago),.., do you agree?
> 
> Should I be surprised you did not choose to respond to the possibly more profound question?


I didn't see a profound question, Graham.  Is it what the minister said?  If so, I took that to mean that god is in the mind of the beholder; each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not and that becomes the reality for that person.  It doesn't, however, become the  reality "out there."


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

spectratg said:


> The God of Spinoza (and Einstein):
> 
> _"Stop praying and beating yourself on the chest.
> Have fun, love, sing and enjoy all that this world can give you.
> ...


I'm just curious -- what's the reference for this?  You're quoting something -- what?  Thanks!


----------



## Sunny (Sep 6, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread, very interesting.   We (or many of us) have been using the agnostic and atheist labels so I decided to look up definitions:
> 
> *Atheism*_ - The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist, and that personal subjective religious experiences say something about the human experience rather than the nature of reality itself; therefore, one has no reason to believe that a god exists._
> 
> ...


Interesting definitions. It sounds like there is a lot of overlap between strong agnosticism and weak atheism.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> I didn't see a profound question, Graham.  Is it what the minister said?  If so, I took that to mean that god is in the mind of the beholder; each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not and that becomes the reality for that person.  It doesn't, however, become the  reality "out there."


Yes, the words of the minister I was referring to.
My interpretation of his meaning differs from yours, (much as I'm still struggling myself!).
Btw, when you state "each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not, ....,", is that's something you're "telling" us (- please see reference above to being told things)?


----------



## Sunny (Sep 6, 2021)

> The simple difference between an avowed atheist, and some one who says they are a believer in god, (be they devote or wavering), is that one is absolutely certain there is nothing outside of themselves, whilst the other side believes there is or may be.


Hold on, Graham!  Who says that an atheist is absolutely certain that there is nothing outside of themselves?  That statement doesn't even make any sense.  

An atheist does not believe in any of the traditional definitions of God, as the "heavenly Father," etc.  I have never heard anyone say there is nothing outside of ourselves. What would that even mean?  There is an entire universe outside of ourselves!


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> Yes, the words of the minister I was referring to.
> My interpretation of his meaning differs from yours, (much as I'm still struggling myself!).
> Btw, when you state "each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not, ....,", is that's something you're "telling" us (- please see reference above to being told things)?


No, I'm saying that this is what I interpret the minister to have been saying.  However, it's also my _belief _-- not my statement of what anyone should do.


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

i've often been in the middle of Science vs Religion debates, perhaps because i have studied both  don't belong to an organized faith and have respect for both subcultures but can see the realities of each.  It annoys the hell out of me when either side is insulting--even just condescending towards the other.  

So, there is only 1 thing that i will take issue with you concerning Science and many who consider themselves 'science minded: The admission of mistakes. While i will concede 'Science' as a discipline will *eventually* acknowledge mistakes and change its paradigms--in the meantime people with new ideas, even ones supported by experiments and studies are often shunned, ridiculed and it can take decades to budge the paradigms at all--sounds like a 'dogma' problem to me. When the paradigm does shift--they often don't acknowledge the pioneers of the new paradigm as even inspiration for the latest researchers who have produced evidence they finally could not ignore or dismiss. So i can't let the 'moral and intellectual' high ground claim about admitting mistakes slide without pointing out some things.

Doctoral students often have problems getting their dissertations approved if the basis for it challenges any of the accepted paradigms, even when experimental evidence to support their thesis exists. And as Professors or research scientists they often can't get their papers published in mainstream journals if they are challenging existing paradigms. At one time they thought baby males didn't feel their circumcisions much, also thought Black people had less pain receptors (much as i dislike polls--i can believe a recent one that some 50% of recent graduating medical school class still believe that one but then i'd think anyone believing it would be too many). Established scientists ridiculed Plate Tectonics, Neuroplasticity, Mind-Body connection. They circumvented acknowledging the impact of the last one by coining the dismissive term 'Placebo Effect' instead of investigating why a significant number of people in control groups have positive results from a 'sugar pill'. 

Not to mention the ease with which non-science degreed people accept the conclusions of studies without investigating how the study was conducted by whom borders on cultish. Thing is not only the how, (i.e. the mechanics of the study, what kind of documentation of results, who was asking whom what) but who paid for it is crucial. And most degreed scientists that are in the public eye do not remind the public often enough, IMO, that if you don't know certain things about a study---you can't really evaluate it's relevance to your life. 

But people blithely cite studies they don't understand (often haven't even skim read) and change their nutritional intake, exercise and lifestyle choices on what they think it means. What's more they'll lecture others about it with no understanding of how that other's needs may be different. When they released the findings that salt raises Blood Pressure it helped me understand my lifelong craving for salt--i've had chronically below 'normal' BP most of my life. About the only problem it ever caused me was occasional hypo-orthostatic tension wooziness if i stood up too quick and sometimes having to do jumping jacks to raise it enough to be able to donate blood or plasma. But complete strangers felt comfortable getting in my face about using salt at restaurants, because -- a study says its 'bad' for us. About that--newsflash--every*body* is literally a unique combination of genes and bodily 'norms'. Hell, my body temp is chronically below normal too.

i knew what my 'norms' were when in my 20's, and also knew that if i took those measurements several times a day over the course of a day they could be radically different depending on what i'd been doing physically and my emotional state. Way too many doctors, presumably scientifically oriented, will just look at the numbers, and also tend assume patients (especially women) don't know how their bodies work and what their norms are regardless of our age. And i get that a lot of people don't know their own norms and the normal fluctuations of the measurements. But when someone tells you up front they do know--odds are they do, and they're just tired of people labeling something problematic that is just normal for them. 

What i'm trying to illustrate with all this is that the 'Science' culture as a whole is only marginally better at updating paradigms, accepting new ideas, admitting mistakes than the Religious Believers camp is. And i've known Religious people better at considering new ideas than some people that  have degrees in hard science or consider themselves 'science minded' --this happens because psychologically we're all unique too--every single consciousness.


----------



## Jennina (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> That's kind of a double-edged sword. While Hitchens solved the problem of the assertion "God exists" by dismissing it (since it's without proof) the atheist will find a trouble proving their assertion "God does not exist" which can similarly be dismissed.
> 
> Though it's a play of words or semantics it's important to follow the sequence of events. If a believer makes an assertion first, that assertion can be dismissed as per Hitchens. But if an atheist makes the assertion first he/she will find him/herself in deep waters.
> 
> ...



First of all, great thread.  It activates metacognition  which repels the trolls from covid threads. 

It's interesting to see the "little battle" between atheists and agnostics. I think of myself as both.

I'm atheist in so far as interventionist gods are concerned. But I consider myself agnostic when it comes to the concept of a non interventionist creator.  The physics/mathematics governing the universe makes me wonder if there's  an intelligent designer. 

Unlike agnostics,   I do believe science will eventually crack "the god code" (for want of a better term) or disprove god's existence.   So depending on the outcome, I'm either a deist-in-waiting or an atheist in waiting. Placing my bet on the latter. 

Anyway,  I do get what you're saying and if I followed your thought process I would agree with you. 

My thoughts:

1) In this theist-atheist debate,  shouldn't the concept of god be asserted first before an atheist can reject it?  Isnt that the real sequence?

2. You can't prove a negative. Atheists aren't saying god doesn't exist because they have proof that he/she doesn't exist. They're merely rejecting the concept of god becausethere's no proof that he/she exists.

3.  Hitchen's razor  becomes even more relevant in this age of conspiracy theories where  anybody can claim anything without evidence and shift the burden of proof to the other side.

4), You said "We don't have enough evidence to prove God's existence" 

Not aware there's  scientific evidence of Gods existence. Please share?


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

Sunny said:


> Hold on, Graham!  Who says that an atheist is absolutely certain that there is nothing outside of themselves?  That statement doesn't even make any sense.
> An atheist does not believe in any of the traditional definitions of God, as the "heavenly Father," etc.  I have never heard anyone say there is nothing outside of ourselves. What would that even mean?  There is an entire universe outside of ourselves!


Just in the sense of anything anyone might reasonably call a god, (and has been called a god for a very long time probably).
Simplz


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> i've often been in the middle of Science vs Religion debates, perhaps because i have studied both  don't belong to an organized faith and have respect for both subcultures but can see the realities of each.  It annoys the hell out of me when either side is insulting--even just condescending towards the other.
> 
> So, there is only 1 thing that i will take issue with you concerning Science and many who consider themselves 'science minded: The admission of mistakes. While i will concede 'Science' as a discipline will *eventually* acknowledge mistakes and change its paradigms--in the meantime people with new ideas, even ones supported by experiments and studies are often shunned, ridiculed and it can take decades to budge the paradigms at all--sounds like a 'dogma' problem to me. When the paradigm does shift--they often don't acknowledge the pioneers of the new paradigm as even inspiration for the latest researchers who have produced evidence they finally could not ignore or dismiss. So i can't let the 'moral and intellectual' high ground claim about admitting mistakes slide without pointing out some things.
> 
> ...


I believe you're absolutely right about all of this, Feywon.  Scientists, like everyone else, have vested interests based in ego.  What's worse, many have vested interests based in job security, book publication, etc.  There is one positive with all of this, though.  While a good deal might go on behind closed doors, it just about always ends up in the literature.  Once it does, and it doesn't take long, anyone who's interested can see the various sides of the issue and do their own evaluations.  This, of course, doesn't hold true for doctoral candidates and the like.  

I already posted somewhere above about the methods of science and the media.  They, too, have a vested interest in anything new, whether or not it hold water and whether or not they're telling the whole story rather than just making splashy headlines.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:
Yes, the words of the minister I was referring to.
My interpretation of his meaning differs from yours, (much as I'm still struggling myself!).
Btw, when you state "each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not, ....,", is that's something you're "telling" us (- please see reference above to being told things)?



Dancing_Queen said:


> No, I'm saying that this is what I interpret the minister to have been saying.  However, it's also my _belief _-- not my statement of what anyone should do.


Okay, but can you see why someone would think this is what you think others should do:
(your 3.44pm post)"..............._each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not and that becomes the reality for that person."_

Are we both guilty of perhaps overthinking things here?


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> The brain should not be allowed to relax.
> It's a "use it or lose it" game


Not every single second. Just as the physical body needs  relaxation (part of why we sleep) so does consciousness (another reason we sleep). Dreaming is another reason we need sleep but that is whole other topic in itself and would need several threads, one to cover each type of dreaming. 

Certainly we should make sure we engage our analytical/rational/logical thinking frequently, at least once a day, if not more. Keep in mind it is not just a matter of contemplating 'deep' subjects. Every time we solve some concrete 3D world problem (a leaky faucet, rearranging furniture to better suit changing needs, 'upcycling' objects most throw away, how to do anything more efficiently) we are *using* our brains. The 'use it or lose it' is applicable to the brain--but the definition of using it should be broader than just contemplating philosophical and/or social issues.

And when we are deeply relaxed, especially in meditative states--generating alpha brainwaves, we are actually more likely to fall into contemplating 'deep' subjects--but often from a less 'personal' perspective and with more of an eye toward what might benefit others as well as ourselves. BTW there are a couple of scientific ways to measure brainwaves, some can be biofeedback setups, others, like fMRIs produce scans that are 'read' by professionals. There have been numerous studies conducted by scientists (some no doubt hoping to 'debunk' the claims of benefit of meditative states) that show what happens in the brain when one is in such a state, including comparing various kinds of meditators.   Some people who try meditation need to be hooked up to biofeedback at least once to confirm they've learned to alter their brainwave pattern to alpha from the standard waking beta brainwaves. For some of us the validation that something actually is changing in our brains when we think it is, is extremely helpful in being able to make better use of both beta and alpha states.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

Jennina said:


> First of all, great thread.  It activates metacognition  which repels the trolls from covid threads.
> 
> It's interesting to see the "little battle" between atheists and agnostics. I think of myself as both.
> 
> ...


For there to be _scientific _evidence, we'd need to get god to show herself to us when we call her; repeat; repeat; repeat; repeat; etc.  And I don't mean what one person might call some sign; I mean what no one could question.  For instance, if we want enough scientific evidence to "prove" (actually, accept a hypothesis) that a specific type of bacterium replicates at a specific rate at a specific temperature, we'd need to hold those constants (along with others) and see what happens -- over and over and over again.

So, I can't imagine that science will ever have "proof" of the existence of god.


----------



## Jennina (Sep 6, 2021)

Mitch86 said:


> I believe in Jesus because His music makes me feel good as shown in this playlist:
> 
> https://music.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXlEVp8uHTXWQWfqT5eInJUe3C2TgrB6v&feature=share
> 
> However, I am also pretty sure that we are created by the merger of a sperm cell and an egg cell and, when we die, we simply CEASE TO EXIST. Thus, I use BOTH belief systems for how the one can make me feel better and the other assures me that all pain and suffering will also cease to exist when we die.


Your god lives with you and ceases to exist with you. I find that very interesting because the reason we created   religion was our fear of death. Religion gives us life beyond death. 

I've read your other posts in another thread. I hope your god helps you cope with your pain. Stay safe, sir.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> grahamg said:
> Yes, the words of the minister I was referring to.
> My interpretation of his meaning differs from yours, (much as I'm still struggling myself!).
> Btw, when you state "each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not, ....,", is that's something you're "telling" us (- please see reference above to being told things)?
> ...


I don't see it, Graham.  Not that it matters; what matters is that you asked for clarification as opposed to jumping all over me.  The reason I don't see it is that that part of my answer was all one sentence:

"I didn't see a profound question, Graham. Is it what the minister said? If so, I took that to mean that god is in the mind of the beholder; each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not and that becomes the reality for that person. It doesn't, however, become the reality 'out there.' "

Everything I answered was in reply to your request for my thoughts on what the minister said.

Pardon me while I test some HTML coding; it may or may not work in this forum.

Did this work right?

How about this?

And this?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> Good job you didn't watch me responding the an arrogant driver yesterday!



You are but a human!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

spectratg said:


> The God of Spinoza (and Einstein):
> 
> _"Stop praying and beating yourself on the chest.
> Have fun, love, sing and enjoy all that this world can give you.
> ...



Beautiful!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I have enjoyed reading this thread, very interesting.   We (or many of us) have been using the agnostic and atheist labels so I decided to look up definitions:
> 
> *Atheism*_ - The atheistic conclusion is that the arguments and evidence both indicate there is insufficient reason to believe that any gods exist, and that personal subjective religious experiences say something about the human experience rather than the nature of reality itself; therefore, one has no reason to believe that a god exists._
> 
> ...



Thank you! 
Based on the above I would choose weak agnosticism just because of my strong belief in science!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> i've often been in the middle of Science vs Religion debates, perhaps because i have studied both  don't belong to an organized faith and have respect for both subcultures but can see the realities of each.  It annoys the hell out of me when either side is insulting--even just condescending towards the other.
> 
> So, there is only 1 thing that i will take issue with you concerning Science and many who consider themselves 'science minded: The admission of mistakes. While i will concede 'Science' as a discipline will *eventually* acknowledge mistakes and change its paradigms--in the meantime people with new ideas, even ones supported by experiments and studies are often shunned, ridiculed and it can take decades to budge the paradigms at all--sounds like a 'dogma' problem to me. When the paradigm does shift--they often don't acknowledge the pioneers of the new paradigm as even inspiration for the latest researchers who have produced evidence they finally could not ignore or dismiss. So i can't let the 'moral and intellectual' high ground claim about admitting mistakes slide without pointing out some things.
> 
> ...



I am aware (and I cannot disagree) with you about the problems within the realm of science. Science fans or, even worse, scientists may not accept or even ridicule new theories and hypotheses for many reasons: ego, money etc. But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed" and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws. This is what makes me say that Science is non-dogmatic while Religion is. Whenever science discovers or proves something new that makes Religion appear wrong the believers are ready to take the blame on their shoulders and "admit" that it wasn't Religion's fault but their own interpretation of it! This is much clearer in older times when Science was making huge leaps with discoveries causing the embarrassment of Religion (and its followers) that had to admit its errors. (No, Sun is not a God, No, Earth is not the center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc.). But yes, you are right to mention that a lot of science fans take what is given to them without even bothering to understand, just like a believer would do with their Religion.

Regarding the field of medicine (which is one of the most incomplete fields of science): Medicine is based hugely on statistics and the treatment of patients follows suit. There are ranges of norms, that the general population falls in and doctors follow mostly blindly because they cannot afford (money and time wise) to consider each case individually. Similar to you, I've found my "specs" to be outside those norms. My blood pressure is lower (in general) than the general norm, my body temperature too. It took me two years of ER visits to determine that while normal levels of potassium are accepted to be 3.5 mmol/L to 5.1 mmol/L (and doctors kept telling me that the reasons of my arrhythmias (AF) were due to my misfunctioning heart) I had to study my analyses myself and determine that I shouldn't let my potassium fall below 4.2 mmol/L otherwise I would have an AF. 

I will end with this: When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Jennina said:


> First of all, great thread.  It activates metacognition  which repels the trolls from covid threads.
> 
> It's interesting to see the "little battle" between atheists and agnostics. I think of myself as both.
> 
> ...



Thank you for your thoughts. I'm not sure if I should thank you for your "great thread" praise, since it's not mine per se. I'm just the OP. 

There are many of your arguments that are identical to mine so, there's not much for me to comment on. I too have faith that Science will finally explain everything and consider myself a deist-in-waiting or atheist-in-waiting.

Re your thoughts:
1. The way I see it is semantic. In my mind an assertion to be an assertion has to be proven. So if the assertion "God does not exist" comes as a statement prior to "God exists" the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of the atheist.

2. A negative can be proven. To understand this one has to consider "smaller" cases e.g. one can assert "There's no human being in this room." which is quit provable.

3. Agreed. That's why one has to be careful with what one asserts.

4. Maybe my use of the word "enough" was wrong (or rather "non-confrontational") to the ones claiming that the universe itself is a "proof" of God's existence.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> i've often been in the middle of Science vs Religion debates, perhaps because i have studied both don't belong to an organized faith and have respect for both subcultures but can see the realities of each. It annoys the hell out of me when either side is insulting--even just condescending towards the other.
> 
> So, there is only 1 thing that i will take issue with you concerning Science and many who consider themselves 'science minded: The admission of mistakes. While i will concede 'Science' as a discipline will *eventually* acknowledge mistakes and change its paradigms--in the meantime people with new ideas, even ones supported by experiments and studies are often shunned, ridiculed and it can take decades to budge the paradigms at all--sounds like a 'dogma' problem to me. When the paradigm does shift--they often don't acknowledge the pioneers of the new paradigm as even inspiration for the latest researchers who have produced evidence they finally could not ignore or dismiss. So i can't let the 'moral and intellectual' high ground claim about admitting mistakes slide without pointing out some things.
> 
> ...



I so love this mini dissertation 

I've had many a confab with heavily degreed academics 
Many don't even know the gist of what they've been taught 
And when challenged to break it down, can't

I happen to hate 'religion' for that very reason

Yet, I'm a Christian 

It's a bit of a crux


----------



## spectratg (Sep 6, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> I'm just curious -- what's the reference for this?  You're quoting something -- what?  Thanks!


Baruch Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher in the 17th century.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I am aware (and I cannot disagree) with you about the problems within the realm of science. Science fans or, even worse, scientists may not accept or even ridicule new theories and hypotheses for many reasons: ego, money etc. But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed" and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws. This is what makes me say that Science is non-dogmatic while Religion is. Whenever science discovers or proves something new that makes Religion appear wrong the believers are ready to take the blame on their shoulders and "admit" that it wasn't Religion's fault but their own interpretation of it! This is much clearer in older times when Science was making huge leaps with discoveries causing the embarrassment of Religion (and its followers) that had to admit its errors. (No, Sun is not a God, No, Earth is not the center of the universe and everything revolves around it etc.). But yes, you are right to mention that a lot of science fans take what is given to them without even bothering to understand, just like a believer would do with their Religion.
> 
> Regarding the field of medicine (which is one of the most incomplete fields of science): Medicine is based hugely on statistics and the treatment of patients follows suit. There are ranges of norms, that the general population falls in and doctors follow mostly blindly because they cannot afford (money and time wise) to consider each case individually. Similar to you, I've found my "specs" to be outside those norms. My blood pressure is lower (in general) than the general norm, my body temperature too. It took me two years of ER visits to determine that while normal levels of potassium are accepted to be 3.5 mmol/L to 5.1 mmol/L (and doctors kept telling me that the reasons of my arrhythmias (AF) were due to my misfunctioning heart) I had to study my analyses myself and determine that I shouldn't let my potassium fall below 4.2 mmol/L otherwise I would have an AF.
> 
> I will end with this: When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?


With genomics progressing as fast as it is, I doubt it's going to be very long before we have huge leaps in patient-specific medicine.  My prediction is that this will be as much of a game changer as was the invention of the microscope.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

spectratg said:


> Baruch Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher in the 17th century.


Thank you.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> I so love this mini dissertation. I've had many a confab with heavily degreed academics. Many don't even know the gist of what they've been taught
> And when challenged to break it down, can't. I happen to hate 'religion' for that very reason.
> Yet, I'm a Christian.It's a bit of a crux


You're a Christian who makes people laugh, and if that isn't "a gift from god" I don't know what is!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> I so love this mini dissertation



I couldn't agree more! When @feywon opines everybody has to hash and listen and think WELL before responding to her!


----------



## spectratg (Sep 6, 2021)

One day, several years ago, a colleague (Jim) and I were discussing another colleague (Tom) who had recently died.  I mentioned my father, and observed that both my father and Tom were good, decent persons and men of strong faith.  I said that both Tom and my father believed in heaven and that they were going there when they died.  I said: "I hope that they were right."  Jim: "Does it really matter, as long as that was what they believed at the moment of their passing?"  Profound!


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> I don't see it, Graham. .  The reason I don't see it is that that part of my answer was all one sentence: "I didn't see a profound question, Graham. Is it what the minister said? If so, I took that to mean that god is in the mind of the beholder; each individual needs to decide if such an entity exists or not and that becomes the reality for that person. It doesn't, however, become the reality 'out there.' "
> Everything I answered was in reply to your request for my thoughts on what the minister said. Pardon me while I test some HTML coding; it may or may not work in this forum. Did this work right? How about this? And this?


I do believe you don't understand the argument put by the minister I keep referring to.
There's a reason for this, (scientific reason, or some other!), but what reason will take much effort to elucidate.


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

i'm going to respond to some triggering phrases from @ CAKCy's response to me:

1) "But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed"..." A) Key words "my belief" B) How many careers/lives get ruined in the meantime?

"and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws." much more often they only become new, expanded theories. In astrophysics alone they are constantly coming up against limits they put on the universe (size of certain types stars, structure of various galaxies) that are disapproved by their own equipment as various types of telescopes go further out into the universe. And did any of them predict lifeforms that could live again after being in artic ice for centuries? Albeit very small, simple organisms. But still...

"When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?"

That is a borderline false equivalency because while the scriptures (of all religions) have remained the same save for translation transgressions since first committed to writing,  interpretations of how to practice the faiths have grown and changed. Even Catholicism one of the most hide bound of faiths can change it's practices. Usually by Papal intervention.

But if we look at how religion is practiced by believers--most will admit things have changed. Only the most regressive fundamentalist sects will fault a person for fleeing an abusive marriage, or after discovering their spouse is sexually abusing a child (especially if their own child). As late as the mid 50's when my parents got divorced there were neighbors who didn't want their children associating with me because my parents were divorced.

While i totally agree that the world would be better off without the 'B & C' type of believers you describe no matter what their religion, i cannot concede that science is not dogmatic. Whether it admits to mistakes (and often the doing so is not a straight admission--but 'oh we have more evidence now' rarely with apologies for the ridicule and roadblocks they heaped on the people who first proposed whatever) in years or decades after  a new paradigm is suggested they still *actively resist* new paradigms even when there is evidence to support them. And it's not the let's do more experiments type resistance which i could get on board with, it's the 'Oh that isn't even worth looking at' type of resistance. 

But as with religions--the fault lies not in the discipline or principals--but the flaws of human nature.


----------



## spectratg (Sep 6, 2021)

Here is one thing that I find amusing about us and our religions.

There are 100 billion to 200 billion start in our galaxy.  That is beyond huge and simply enormous in scope, totally beyond human understanding.

But wait there's more.  There are 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies in the universe, or perhaps it is infinite.

And yet all religions seem to think that there is just Earth and human beings. 

You must believe in the one true religion which is (fill in the blank) in order to be saved.  All religions can't be right, so the only conclusion is that they all must be wrong.

Reality is what it is.  No wishful thinking in the collective consciousness of the human race can change that.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

grahamg said:


> I do believe you don't understand the argument put by the minister I keep referring to.
> There's a reason for this, (scientific reason, or some other!), but what reason will take much effort to elucidate.


Then don't try to explain the reason, Graham.  Just please tell me what you think he meant.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> i'm going to respond to some triggering phrases from @ CAKCy's response to me:
> 
> 1) "But my belief is that at the very end Science "gets it nailed"..." A) Key words "my belief" B) How many careers/lives get ruined in the meantime?



Probably many. That, though, doesn't change the fact that the flow, at the end, is in the right direction.



> "and theories inevitably disappear or become strongly stated laws." much more often they only become new, expanded theories. In astrophysics alone they are constantly coming up against limits they put on the universe (size of certain types stars, structure of various galaxies) that are disapproved by their own equipment as various types of telescopes go further out into the universe. And did any of them predict lifeforms that could live again after being in artic ice for centuries? Albeit very small, simple organisms. But still...



You have chosen a field/discipline which is relatively new hence the knowledge deriving from it is expanding rapidly.



> "When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?"
> 
> That is a borderline false equivalency because while the scriptures (of all religions) have remained the same save for translation transgressions since first committed to writing,  interpretations of how to practice the faiths have grown and changed. Even Catholicism one of the most hide bound of faiths can change it's practices. Usually by Papal intervention.



Practices may change. People admitting their mistakes/errors may voice them out. The last ecumenical council (Second Council of Nicaea - 787) attempted to "rewrite" Religion. When are we going to have a new ecumenical council?



> But if we look at how religion is practiced by believers--most will admit things have changed. Only the most regressive fundamentalist sects will fault a person for fleeing an abusive marriage, or after discovering their spouse is sexually abusing a child (especially if their own child). As late as the mid 50's when my parents got divorced there were neighbors who didn't want their children associating with me because my parents were divorced.



Religion has become a matter of personal interpretation ("Flat Earthers are a real thing!) which makes it difficult if not impossible to debate.



> While i totally agree that the world would be better off without the 'B & C' type of believers you describe no matter what their religion,



I'm glad we agree on something!



> i cannot concede that science is not dogmatic. Whether it admits to mistakes (and often the doing so is not a straight admission--but 'oh we have more evidence now' rarely with apologies for the ridicule and roadblocks they heaped on the people who first proposed whatever) in years or decades after they've a new paradigm is suggested they still *actively resist* new paradigms even when there is evidence to support them.  But as with religions--the fault lies not in the discipline or principals--but the flaws of human nature.



I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic. Communism and Socialism "failed" because of the flaws of human nature. That does _ not_ make them bad political/economical systems.


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

@CAKCy said: "I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic."
Scientific method/process in purest form is not, but as some Scientists practice it? 
Interesting how you complain about religious believers 'making excuses' for their faiths and allowing for individual interpretations of scriptures, but then basically justified your belief that 'science as a concept is not dogmatic' while not really admitting that Scientists often are. If there are to be different standards shouldn't those claiming to devotion to *verifiable* facts be more
circumspect in their language and practices?

And as for Astrophysics being 'relatively new' so expanding rapidly--even more reason that Scientists of all people need to be precise in their use of language: Call theories what they are--*theories*, more consistently.  Add qualifying words and phrases "It seems, we think" more often than making straight affirmative statements as if your interpretations of what your instruments see, record is absolute *fact*.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> @CAKCy said: "I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic."
> Scientific method/process in purest form is not, but as some Scientists practice it?
> Interesting how you complain about religious believers 'making excuses' for their faiths and allowing for individual interpretations of scriptures, but then basically justified your belief that 'science as a concept is not dogmatic' while not really admitting that Scientists often are. If there are to be different standards shouldn't those claiming to devotion to *verifiable* facts be more
> circumspect in their language and practices?
> ...



We have agreed on Scientists being human. But I can't understand how, while you accept that Science in its purest form is not dogmatic, you don't seem to assert that Religion, in its purest form, _is_ dogmatic. If it wasn't it wouldn't rely so much on the "interpretation" of the scriptures by each and every one. Science does not depend on any interpretation; a law is a law is a law until there is a new law replacing it.

It is clear from your view of Astrophysics that, once again, human imperfection is the culprit of Science not being "treated" right. One cannot blame Science for the imperfections of its ministers.


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Make it any shape your want. It would still have a beginning and an end.


Said tongue in cheek:
Not if the time/space continuum of our universe has a moebius bend or bends.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 6, 2021)

A theory in science means way more than speculation.  Theory in science is based on facts, laws, and be provable and must be tested.  A theory must have supported evidence.  If new evidence comes along a theory must be able to incorporate it or have the theory changed or rejected.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> Said tongue in cheek:
> Not if the time/space continuum of our universe has a moebius bend or bends.



Just to disagree with me.... So be it....


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> And if the beginning and the end happen to be the same point?
> If the universe is curved, might not time be circular?
> Or some other closed curve?


My first thought reading  'it would still have a beginning and an end' was a moebius bend.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Pepper said:


> A theory in science means way more than speculation.  Theory in science is based on facts, laws, and be provable and must be tested.  A theory must have supported evidence.  If new evidence comes along a theory must be able to incorporate it or have the theory changed or rejected.



I wish things were as straight forward. @feywon is right: Many reasons make science appear dubious and untrustworthy. (Remember Hydroxychloroquine?)


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> @CAKCy said: "I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic."
> Scientific method/process in purest form is not, but as some Scientists practice it?
> Interesting how you complain about religious believers 'making excuses' for their faiths and allowing for individual interpretations of scriptures, but then basically justified your belief that 'science as a concept is not dogmatic' while not really admitting that Scientists often are. If there are to be different standards shouldn't those claiming to devotion to *verifiable* facts be more
> circumspect in their language and practices?
> ...


I'm not looking to get into the crux of this discussion, feywon.  I do want to state, though, that, as I'm sure you know, the scientific definition of a theory is "an accepted hypothesis."  And an accepted hypothesis is one that's gone through rigorous testing and is shown to have a statistical probability of no more than 5% of occurring simply by chance.  

That said, I do agree with you that even if a hypothesis has been accepted at the .001 level of significance, it's still not a law; that's why it's Einstein's _Theories _of Relativity even though without both the Specific and General Theories our GPS's would send us 30 miles or so out of the way and don't seem to have that problem with all of the billions of uses they've gotten.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I wish things were as straight forward. @feywon is right: Many reasons make science appear dubious and untrustworthy. (Remember Hydroxychloroquine?)


I don't think that was a serious scientific statement of use, but I could be mistaken.  However, because of all of the disinformation about it, the hype did make science look "dubious and untrustworthy."


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Just to disagree with me.... So be it....


Ahh i will tell you this...while i mostly enjoy these discussions sometimes (more often in 'socio-political' discussions, but on any complex subject)  i  make responses not for the person who's words prompted my thought, but for onlookers--those who have the feeling the poster was somehow 'offbase', but have no clue how to counter the point and also for those who may have thought they were alone in thinking a similar or very same thing.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> I don't think that was a serious scientific statement of use, but I could be mistaken.  However, because of all of the disinformation about it, the hype did make science look "dubious and untrustworthy."



You get the point!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> Ahh i will tell you this...while i mostly enjoy these discussions sometimes (more often in 'socio-political' discussions, but on any complex subject)  i  make responses not for the person who's words prompted my thought, but for onlookers--those who have the feeling the poster was somehow 'offbase', but have no clue how to counter the point and also for those who may have thought they were alone in thinking a similar or very same thing.



Buuuut.... in this case, you decided to turn the poster into a... "punching bag"....


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> My first thought reading  'it would still have a beginning and an end' was a moebius bend.





feywon said:


> Said tongue in cheek:
> Not if the time/space continuum of our universe has a moebius bend or bends.


Enough of this weird stuff out there and may find ourselves jumping through worm holes.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> Enough of this weird stuff out there and may find ourselves jumping through worm holes.



Worry not!
Hawking's radiation will compensate....


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I wish things were as straight forward. @feywon is right: Many reasons make science appear dubious and untrustworthy. (Remember Hydroxychloroquine?)


Whoa--where did i say 'dubious and trustworthy', if you drew that conclusion from things i said about inconsistencies and non-adherence to the standards the  Concept of Science in presenting ones ideas and conclusions--that's on you.   *NOT* my words.

i do feel Scientists and science 'fans' are often dogmatic and do not adhere to all the processes and constructs about evidence and proof they claim to hold dear. You really don't want to get me started on what is indeed 'dubious' about 'thought experiments' or thinking a 20 ft long equation can explain* behaviors*.


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Buuuut.... in this case, you decided to turn the poster into a... "punching bag"....


i'm sorry that it felt like that to you.   Maybe you should report me for making a personal attack? If you think you can make a case for an alternative point of view, a viable counter-argument to a statement being a personal attack!  

Even on a thread one of us starts it is never just about the OP, unless they are asking advice about something.    The best conversations/discussions/debates on what bingo called 'deep thinking'  take on a life of their own, they can quite naturally grow out in various directions.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> Whoa--where did i say 'dubious and trustworthy', if you drew that conclusion from things i said about inconsistencies and non-adherence to the standards the  Concept of Science in presenting ones ideas and conclusions--that's on you.   *NOT* my words.
> 
> i do feel Scientists and science 'fans' are often dogmatic and do not adhere to all the processes and constructs about evidence and proof they claim to hold dear. You really don't want to get me started on what is indeed 'dubious' about 'thought experiments' or thinking a 20 ft long equation can explain* behaviors*.



My bad. You didn't use those words. Your exact words were:



feywon said:


> in the meantime people with new ideas, even ones supported by experiments and studies are often shunned, ridiculed and it can take decades to budge the paradigms at all--sounds like a 'dogma' problem to me. When the paradigm does shift--they often don't acknowledge the pioneers of the new paradigm as even inspiration for the latest researchers who have produced evidence they finally could not ignore or dismiss.





feywon said:


> Doctoral students often have problems getting their dissertations approved if the basis for it challenges any of the accepted paradigms, even when experimental evidence to support their thesis exists. And as Professors or research scientists they often can't get their papers published in mainstream journals if they are challenging existing paradigms.





feywon said:


> Not to mention the ease with which non-science degreed people accept the conclusions of studies without investigating how the study was conducted by whom borders on cultish. Thing is not only the how, (i.e. the mechanics of the study, what kind of documentation of results, who was asking whom what) but who paid for it is crucial. And most degreed scientists that are in the public eye do not remind the public often enough, IMO, that if you don't know certain things about a study---you can't really evaluate it's relevance to your life.



which could be (or I did) interpreted as science (read scientists) being dubious and untrustworthy. If new ideas/paradigms are left in the drawer for any reason (publicity, greed, ego etc.) doesn't that make science untrustworthy or a huge conspiracy? The same applies when studies are conducted aiming at reaching a pre-determined conclusion.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> i'm sorry that it felt like that to you.   Maybe you should report me for making a personal attack? If you think you can make a case for an alternative point of view, a viable counter-argument to a statement being a personal attack!
> 
> Even on a thread one of us starts it is never just about the OP, unless they are asking advice about something.    The best conversations/discussions/debates on what bingo called 'deep thinking'  take on a life of their own, they can quite naturally grow out in various directions.



I should say that I was kidding. My apologies!


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I should say that I was kidding. My apologies!


That lets me feel better, i was afraid I'd actually offended you. 
not my intent and why i said 'tongue in cheek' first, altho i have pondered the possibility of such a moebious bend.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> That lets me feel better, i was afraid I'd actually offended you.
> not my intent and why i said 'tongue in cheek' first, altho i have pondered the possibility of such a moebious bend.



I have said many times... maybe you missed it... one has to try really, really, REALLY hard to offend me. I often use sarcasm, self-deprecation or plain silliness as part of my "being funny" persona (or so I think). I should be more careful with people who don't know me so well...


----------



## feywon (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I have said many times... maybe you missed it... one has to try really, really, REALLY hard to offend me. I often use sarcasm, self-deprecation or plain silliness as part of my "being funny" persona (or so I think). I should be more careful with people who don't know me so well...


I considered the possibility but wasn't sure. 
Experience has taught that as careful as i try to be with my words, sometimes i mess up. 

I don't get offended easily either tho i certainly may get annoyed or aggravated with people sometimes, but i don't take things personally  until i've had extensive interactions with someone and a negative remark is clearly aimed at me.


----------



## Irwin (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I still believe that Science, as a concept, is not dogmatic. Communism and Socialism "failed" because of the flaws of human nature. That does _ not_ make them bad political/economical systems.


Au contraire mon frere, there are successful communes all over the world — even in the United States. Communes have thrived in Israel for at least 100 years. On a small scale, they are very efficient economic systems where everyone works together for the common good — something that's frowned up by many in todays self-centered world. On a nationwide scale, communism often gets corrupted by a dictator, such as with Stalinism and in Cuba. Then again, the argument could be made that the U.S. turned Castro into a dictator.

Many communist implementations around the world never got a chance to succeed. American interventionism made sure of that. During the Cold War, whenever our leaders saw a nation leaning towards communism — usually with a new, democratically elected leader who sought to nationalize their national resources being plundered by American corporations, we overthrew their leaders and installed right wing dictators. That was the case in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and several others that slip my mind at the moment.

We also intervened where we believed that if one country fell to communism, it would have a domino effect and all the countries in the region would fall to communism. That must be a pretty damn good system if people love it so much that we have to block it from spreading! That was the rationale for our intervention in Vietnam where the vast majority of the population were Buddhist communists and we installed a Christian dictator who was sympathetic to American needs to "prevent the spread of communism." In the case of Vietnam, they didn't have natural resources we needed, but it was more their proximity to China that scared us. We were afraid that if Vietnam fell, all of Indonesia would follow.

Okay, I admit it... I derailed the conversation. I've been reading a book about American interventionism so it's been on my mind. Back to religion and agnosticism.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

feywon said:


> I considered the possibility but wasn't sure.
> Experience has taught that as careful as i try to be with my words, sometimes i mess up.
> 
> I don't get offended easily either tho i certainly may get annoyed or aggravated with people sometimes, but i don't take things personally  until i've had extensive interactions with someone and a negative remark is clearly aimed at me.



If I EVER feel offended by you (or anyone) you will get a direct blunt question, just to make sure. I detest having to read between the lines!


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Irwin said:


> Au contraire mon frere, there are successful communes all over the world — even in the United States. Communes have thrived in Israel for at least 100 years. On a small scale, they are very efficient economic systems where everyone works together for the common good — something that's frowned up by many in todays self-centered world. On a nationwide scale, communism often gets corrupted by a dictator, such as with Stalinism and in Cuba. Then again, the argument could be made that the U.S. turned Castro into a dictator.
> 
> Many communist implementations around the world never got a chance to succeed. American interventionism made sure of that. During the Cold War, whenever our leaders saw a nation leaning towards communism — usually with a new, democratically elected leader who sought to nationalize their national resources being plundered by American corporations, we overthrew their leaders and installed right wing dictators. That was the case in Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and several others that slip my mind at the moment.
> 
> ...



I am CAKCy and I approve this message!


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Would we better off without religion?




Can't say for certain but one thing's for sure ~ as Alan Watts said many years ago, _more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history_.  More often than not, due to (mis)interpretations of the New Testament.  Ironically the fanatics who committed these crimes claim to worship the Prince of Peace.  So sad when you think about it.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 6, 2021)

Dancing_Queen said:


> Then don't try to explain the reason, Graham.  Just please tell me what you think he meant.


I have tried to explain I'm still unsure, twenty years on what it really means to state something seemingly so simple, as "When we SAY there is a god, there is a god, when we SAY there is no god, there is no god", (my first thought twenty years ago was that it couldn't be right because it suggests mankind creates god, not the other way around).
However, I must have tried to discuss the sermon I'm referring to a few times since then, and realise that's an achievement in itself, by the minister, "making you think"!

Now my thinking is this, notice the word "SAY".

That's the operative word, those people gathered in church on the day listening to the minister were choosing to say there was a god, not that they thought or necessarily believed there was a god, oddly enough, and it is a group choosing to do this, not one person thinking for themselves alone, (that' you're interpretation isn't it, and where you fall down in your understanding in my view).

Now many of those people in that church had spent a lifetime trying to understand their religion, and professing a faith, and were far more knowledgeable than I, and of course the minister himself, fulfilling such a skilled role, as an instructor/teacher, leader, drawing people together, trying to encourage people to think about their lives, have belief in themselves, (and in others), and making us collectively feel better about ourselves maybe, and assisting in meditation.

That's of course without mentioning any scriptures, and I'm sure many could come up with a very long list of the skills needed to lead even a small church.

So this idea I've put forward, "saying something" is the significant bit, when it comes to a religion, far more perhaps than even what it means to say you believe in a god, or "presence", or as I clumsily put it, "something outside of yourself", (and of the nature I'm trying to describe, by definition I'd say, atheists cannot do this!).

Any further forward or more confused? I'll fully understand if you believe I'm talking complete nonsense.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Can't say for certain but one thing's for sure ~ as Alan Watts said many years ago, _more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history_.  More often than not, due to (mis)interpretations of the New Testament.  Ironically the fanatics who committed these crimes claim to worship the Prince of Peace.  So sad when you think about it.



I don't disagree with what you say. I just consider the millions (if not billions) who would be left without anywhere/anyone to turn to in time of coping with their problems or their fears. Not everyone is strong enough to cope on their own. (That includes myself. Maybe if a I had a God my depression and anxiety would be a lot less...)

Regarding the fanatics who reach the point of committing acts of violence in the name of their religion, I believe they are a small minority to the entire set of believers.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 6, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I take the view that our morals and laws have evolved to support our civilization, without them no civilization.  Religion helps people understand and live by the morals, but I don't believe religion is the source of morals.
> 
> Like you I suspect all peoples, including the untouched tribes have morals, but likely different from ours.
> 
> ...


But these were, I believe, financial decisions.  Especially the decision to allow blacks to join and hold the priesthood, just saying.  But the LDS priesthood is not comparable to the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

The fundamental LDS folks still believe in polygamy and still practice it within the state of Utah.  Most would be shocked to learn how much it is still here.  It’s not just a tv show


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> But these were, I believe, financial decisions.  Especially the decision to allow blacks to join and hold the priesthood, just saying.  But the LDS priesthood is not comparable to the priesthood of the Catholic Church.
> 
> The fundamental LDS folks still believe in polygamy and still practice it within the safe of Utah.  Most would be shocked to learn how much it is still here.  It’s not just a tv show



Hey Aneeda72! It's a pleasure to have you joining in the conversation!


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 6, 2021)

Just a note here;

I've been an agnostic most my life

Living in the mountains (nature) turned me

This stuff don't just happen

Mornings there, out the window of our cabin bedroom;




It's a glorious way to wake up





That

and some events;



Didn’t happen today, yet still....it made me happy today

It’ll make me happy tomorrow if I think about it


A while back, wife and I went to church

It’s refreshing, sometimes, to attend a church

Sometimes

Anyway, there was a song service
I don’t sing
Can’t
Tried
It’s not considered singing
So, there I was, mouthing the words.

A few rows back, a middle aged gentleman was singing his heart out.
A tenor, I believe.
I also believe he was a butcher by trade.
Cause he was doin’ a job of it on that song.
His voice, his voice literally hurt my good ear.

Seems there are several stanzas to ‘He Lives’.
He got louder with each one.
At the last of the chorus to the last stanza I looked back...

Had to

There he was, tears streaming down his face.

Yet,

His face....beaming
The sun wasn't shining

But, his heart, his heart was filled, filled with joy
..and it came out

He wasn’t a good looking guy

He literally wrecked the hymn


I’ve seen a lot of beauty
A lot
In nature, mostly

But this

This was the most beautiful thing
I have ever seen


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> Just a note here;
> 
> I've been an agnostic most my life
> 
> ...



I love you man!
Now go say welcome to @caramel, our newcomer!
Pay attention to my words: SAY hello to her. DON'T sing it!


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I don't disagree with what you say. I just consider the millions (if not billions) who would be left without anywhere/anyone to turn to in time of coping with their problems or their fears. Not everyone is strong enough to cope on their own. (That includes myself. Maybe if a I had a God my depression and anxiety would be a lot less...)
> 
> Regarding the fanatics who reach the point of committing acts of violence in the name of their religion, I believe they are a small minority to the entire set of believers.





Well, I did not say that the New Testament should be censored or that denominational churches be wiped away from the earth.  Perhaps what we need is more correct interpretation of that book's teaching. Or at least Alan Watts would have said so. BTW, his lectures can be found on youtube. 

Over the years I have challenged a number of preachers to prove   certain NT claims to be  real.  For example, the book says any of Jesus's ministers could duplicate and surpass the many miracles attributed to him.   I especially made it a point to challenge the cultists Herbert W and Garner T Armstrong of the infamous World Wide Church of God.  Two biggest phonies I ever encountered in my life. I dared both of them to have a public debate with me  on the subject of their cult's teaching and both of them ran away from me faster than  Dracula running away from the Holy Cross.  

Don't know if the name Charles Colson of Watergate fame means anything to you as it does to many Americans.  He was another one who made some rather convenient misinterpretations of the Bible. I challenged him to debates on his writings which he quickly declined.  But at least he did so very politely and humbly unlike the two Antichrist Armstrong phonies. 

Bottom line is that many churches have given themselves the authority to kill in the name of their Holy Book.  This despite the fact that they cannot point to any authorization given by any actual source.  This is what Watts was talking about it.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 6, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> Just a note here;
> 
> I've been an agnostic most my life
> 
> ...






All my life I've always wished that I could live the lifestyle where this was all a major part of my life.  But the opportunity never came my way.  Your pics remind me of my all time fave poem by Wm Cullen Bryant:



Inscription for the Entrance to a Wood​
Stranger, if thou hast learned a truth which needs
No school of long experience, that the world
Is full of guilt and misery, and hast seen
Enough of all its sorrows, crimes, and cares,
To tire thee of it, enter this wild wood
And view the haunts of nature. _The calm shade
Shall bring a kindred calm, and the sweet breeze
That makes the green leaves dance, shall waft a balm
To thy sick heart. _Thou wilt find nothing here
Of all that pained thee in the haunts of men,
And made thee loathe thy life. The primal curse
Fell, it is true, upon the unsinning earth,
But not in vengance. God hath yoked to guilt
Her pale tormentor, Misery. Hence these shades
Are still the abode of gladness; the thick roof
Of green and stirring branches is alive
And musical with birds, that sing and sport
In wantonness of spirit; while below
The squirrel, with raised paws and form erect,
Chirps merrily. Throngs of insects in the shade
Try their thin wings and dance in the warm beam.
That waked them into life. Even the green trees
Partake the deep contentment; as they bend
To the soft winds, the sun from the blue sky
Looks in and sheds a blessing on the scene.
Scarce less the cleft-born wildflower seems to enjoy
Existence, than the winged plunderer
That sucks its sweets. The mossy rocks themselves,
And the old and ponderous trunks of prostrate trees
That lead from knoll to knoll a causeway rude,
Or bridge the sunken brook, and their dark roots,
With all their roots upon them, twisting high,
Breathe fixed tranquility. The rivulet
Sends forth glad sounds, and tripping o'er its bed
Of pebbly sands, or leaping down the rocks
Seems, with continuous laughter, to rejoice
In its own being. Softly tread the marge,
Lest from her midway perch thou scare the wren
That dips her bill in water. The cool wind,
That stirs the stream in play, shall come to thee,
Like one that loves thee nor will let thee pass
Ungreeted, and shall give its light embrace.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Well, I did not say that the New Testament should be censored or that denominational churches be wiped away from the earth.  Perhaps what we need is more correct interpretation of that book's teaching. Or at least Alan Watts would have said so. BTW, his lectures can be found on youtube.
> 
> Over the years I have challenged a number of preachers to prove   certain NT claims to be  real.  For example, the book says any of Jesus's ministers could duplicate and surpass the many miracles attributed to him.   I especially made it a point to challenge the cultists Herbert W and Garner T Armstrong of the infamous World Wide Church of God.  Two biggest phonies I ever encountered in my life. I dared both of them to have a public debate with me  on the subject of their cult's teaching and both of them ran away from me faster than  Dracula running away from the Holy Cross.



So, you are some sort of known/famous advocate of atheism?



> Don't know if the name Charles Colson of Watergate fame means anything to you as it does to many Americans.  He was another one who made some rather convenient misinterpretations of the Bible. I challenged him to debates on his writings which he quickly declined.  But at least he did so very politely and humbly unlike the two Antichrist Armstrong phonies.



I need to do a lot more homework studying the American reality of religion. I have to admit that the names you mention don't ring a bell.



> Bottom line is that many churches have given themselves the authority to kill in the name of their Holy Book.  This despite the fact that they cannot point to any authorization given by any actual source.  This is what Watts was talking about it.



The same, of course, applies to other religions which have used their followers to commit atrocities.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> All my life I've always wished that I could live the lifestyle where this was all a major part of my life.  But the opportunity never came my way.  Your pics remind me of my all time fave poem by Wm Cullen Bryant:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My favorite Kazantzakis quote about God:

“I said to the almond tree, 'Sister, speak to me of God.'. And the almond tree blossomed.”

Kazantzakis was almost ex-communicated by the Greek Orthodox Church because of his "Last Temptation" and "Christ Recrucified"


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 6, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Well, I did not say that the New Testament should be censored or that denominational churches be wiped away from the earth.  Perhaps what we need is more correct interpretation of that book's teaching. Or at least Alan Watts would have said so. BTW, his lectures can be found on youtube.
> 
> Over the years I have challenged a number of preachers to prove   certain NT claims to be  real.  For example, the book says any of Jesus's ministers could duplicate and surpass the many miracles attributed to him.   I especially made it a point to challenge the cultists Herbert W and Garner T Armstrong of the infamous World Wide Church of God.  Two biggest phonies I ever encountered in my life. I dared both of them to have a public debate with me  on the subject of their cult's teaching and both of them ran away from me faster than  Dracula running away from the Holy Cross.
> 
> ...


Of course the miracles of Jesus have been duplicated and surpassed.  A human heart can be removed and replaced with another human heart-what greater miracle do you need?  Was this science, yes.  But still a miracle.

As far as I know, neither God nor Jesus defined how the miracles were to come about-so science is an accepted method of obtaining miracles.  Religion is not a necessary component of belief in God, but it probably helps


----------



## ohioboy (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - Isaak Asimov



That is part of his intellectual hubris, as he is also quoted as saying "Carl Sagan is one of only two people I ever met whose intellect surpassed my own."

The other was Marvin Minsky, computer scientist.


----------



## Shero (Sep 6, 2021)

"When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?" (feywon)

*You cannot rewrite “history” of another era.*

You must believe in the one true religion which is (fill in the blank) in order to be saved. All religions can't be right, so the only conclusion is that they all must be wrong. (spectratg)

*Disagree. They all contain "truths" relevant to their respective believers.*

Some scientists also “fudge” their results (Shero)

One cannot blame Science for the imperfections of its ministers. (CAKCy)
*Agree.*

Feywon, you speak of “moebius bend: Is that the same as Mobius strip?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Just to disagree with me.... So be it....


I think it was Einstein who commented that the language of the Universe is mathematics, so why not look to mathematics for inspiration and improbable possibilities?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 6, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Well, I did not say that the New Testament should be censored or that denominational churches be wiped away from the earth.  Perhaps what we need is more correct interpretation of that book's teaching. Or at least Alan Watts would have said so. BTW, his lectures can be found on youtube.
> 
> Over the years I have challenged a number of preachers to prove   certain NT claims to be  real.  For example, the book says any of Jesus's ministers could duplicate and surpass the many miracles attributed to him.   I especially made it a point to challenge the cultists Herbert W and Garner T Armstrong of the infamous World Wide Church of God.  Two biggest phonies I ever encountered in my life. I dared both of them to have a public debate with me  on the subject of their cult's teaching and both of them ran away from me faster than  Dracula running away from the Holy Cross.
> 
> ...


Have you ever read the Book of Esther? The ending is quite grisly.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 6, 2021)

ohioboy said:


> That is part of his intellectual hubris, as he is also quoted as saying "Carl Sagan is one of only two people I ever met whose intellect surpassed my own."
> 
> The other was Marvin Minsky, computer scientist.


I don't doubt that he said this. He certainly had a very inflated ego.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I love you man!
> Now go say welcome to @caramel, our newcomer!
> Pay attention to my words: SAY hello to her. DON'T sing it!


I love you too, C
I seldom, if ever, greet any new recruits
and, I'll not sing
The birds appreciate it

Well, there was that one time
Up by the cabin

The chickadee gave me wunna these;


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> I love you too, C
> I seldom, if ever, greet any new recruits
> and, I'll not sing
> The birds appreciate it
> ...


And you call that.... appreciation????
It was probably facing the other way until you started singing.......


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> I think it was Einstein who commented that the language of the Universe is mathematics, so why not look to mathematics for inspiration and improbable possibilities?



I love Mathematics! My favorite hobby when I was a kid was listen to music, drink Coke and solve Math problems! 

Any specific inspiration and improbable possibility I should be looking for?


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> It was probably facing the other way until you started singing.......


 yes, he was...facing me

If I continued singing. he might've made a 'donation'


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Shero said:


> "When was the last time you experienced a change of the "scriptures" i.e. the Holy Bible scratching something out and replacing it with something else?" (feywon)
> 
> *You cannot rewrite “history” of another era.*
> 
> ...



I reply for everybody. They may have a different view...

Agreed: One cannot rewrite "history". But one can rewrite the holy book of every religion to apply to modern times.

There is but one truth. There cannot be multiple truths to serve various tastes.

Yes, moebius ben is the Mobius strip.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> yes, he was...facing me
> 
> If I continued singing. he might've made a 'donation'



A donation with the note: "Please make him stop!"


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I love Mathematics! My favorite hobby when I was a kid was listen to music, drink Coke and solve Math problems!
> 
> Any specific inspiration and improbable possibility I should be looking for?


Let's see..

That the universe is not a closed system, or that the laws of thermodynamics fail at the extremities of the universe, or that the universe looks like a mobius strip, or a donut, when viewed from outside. Take your pick or use your imagination to call up other possibilities.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Let's see..
> 
> That the universe is not a closed system, or that the laws of thermodynamics fail at the extremities of the universe, or that the universe looks like a mobius strip, or a donut, when viewed from outside. Take your pick or use your imagination to call up other possibilities.



In the case of the universe being a mobius strip or a donut then no creator is necessarily needed. The universe would exist forever (past and future without beginning and end). It's beyond human logic but so is God.

The universe doesn't need to be a closed system for the laws of thermodynamics to apply. Even if there was vacuum beyond the universe there's a good chance that the laws would still apply. We don't know. Yet.


----------



## Shero (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I reply for everybody. They may have a different view...
> 
> Agreed: One cannot rewrite "history". But one can rewrite the holy book of every religion to apply to modern times.
> 
> ...


 Big mistake mon ami, you cannot reply for anyone !

You say: "There is but one truth. There cannot be multiple truths to serve various tastes."
*Disagree: there is: empirical truth and convenient truth*


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Shero said:


> Big mistake mon ami, you cannot reply for anyone !
> 
> You say: "There is but one truth. There cannot be multiple truths to serve various tastes."
> *Disagree: there is: empirical truth and convenient truth*


WHAT? You beg to differ???


----------



## Shero (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> WHAT? You beg to differ???


Always, it is my trademark


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 6, 2021)

I am not qualified to discuss higher level mathematics, sadly my brain is not wired that way, however, I do not believe logic has all the answers. To me, life is like a cosmic onion, lol,  endless layers of experience, not always amenable to thought. Hey, I am well versed in the scientific method, but, like everything else, I believe it has limitations. Let us endeavour to keep the doors and windows of our experience open, we may be surprised by joy, and perhaps enlightenment. What a beautiful puzzle it all is.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

My Lady, I'm afraid I may have to disagree with you about logic not having all the answers. I can picture the cosmic onion you refer to, the endless layers of experience but what is often not amenable to thought, it almost always leads to transgressions that may cause bitterness if not worse.

The scientific method does have its limitations, simply because science has not progressed enough to overcome those limitations. I believe that there will be a point in time that science won't have those limitations (it's only Monday.... wait until Friday...)

Believing in the power of science does not, in any way, mean not keeping the doors and windows of our experience open. On the contrary experience becomes knowledge and enlightenment along with imagination are what opens new ways for science to reach its final destination. And yes, the puzzle is beautiful!

On a personal level, I kind of gave up on the hope of surprises, especially by joy, when hope became consuming and draining. One has to let logic prevail before one goes under.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> you are some sort of known/famous advocate of atheism?




Not at all.  I am a Perez on my mother's side.  If you see the ancestral lines mentioned in the Bible you see that David, Solomon, and Jesus were all descended of this family line. My ancestors having largely been Sefardic Jews, this means that I can trace my ancestry directly to them.  Thus, to me these people are as real as my own blood is to me. 

My point in challenging lying antichrists like the Armstrongs is that I hate to see people lied to and led to what Christians call "perdition". The Armstrongs being the liars that they are conveniently ignored my challenges because they knew I was correct and that they would be embarrassed if they debated me in public.  This is similar to SF forum pundits who claim they "ignore" my writings - it is an acknowledgement of sorts that they know what I've written is the truth and that they lack the means to refute it.  




> The same, of course, applies to other religions which have used their followers to commit atrocities.



Sadly, this is true. But as Westerners we mostly concern ourselves with the horrendous actions taken by those claiming to be Holy Warriors from our own fold such as,


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Not at all.  I am a Perez on my mother's side.  If you see the ancestral lines mentioned in the Bible you see that David, Solomon, and Jesus were all descended of this family line. My ancestors having largely been Sefardic Jews, this means that I can trace my ancestry directly to them.  Thus, to me these people are as real as my own blood is to me.
> 
> My point in challenging lying antichrists like the Armstrongs is that I hate to see people lied to and led to what Christians call "perdition". The Armstrongs being the liars that they are conveniently ignored my challenges because they knew I was correct and that they would be embarrassed if they debated me in public.  This is similar to SF forum pundits who claim they "ignore" my writings - it is an acknowledgement of sorts that they know what I've written is the truth and that they lack the means to refute it.
> 
> ...



My question came up when I thought why some popular con-men (like the Armstrongs) would pay any attention to a commoner?

Ummmm... I don't think Westerners concern our/yourselves with the horrendous actions of the "Holy Warriors". We/they (especially the US) are mostly occupied with accusing every other religion for their actions and how terrible they are! If an alien listened to Westerners talking he/she/it would be convinced that "terrorism" is always Muslim and speaks Arabic.....


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> My Lady, I'm afraid I may have to disagree with you about logic not having all the answers. I can picture the cosmic onion you refer to, the endless layers of experience but what is often not amenable to thought, it almost always leads to transgressions that may cause bitterness if not worse.
> 
> The scientific method does have its limitations, simply because science has not progressed enough to overcome those limitations. I believe that there will be a point in time that science won't have those limitations (it's only Monday.... wait until Friday...)
> 
> ...


I won’t bore anyone with a clinical perspective, but interestingly enough, my hope burned brightest during the endless crucible of my childhood. As a slave, the only thing I owned was my mind, and the imagination which allowed me inner access to the world I built to escape the horror. That world remains, and although I have been blocked from

entry since I was fourteen, I can still see it as through a window. Sigh. For all its fantasy, that world was far more grounded and sensible  than the paedophile stable which defined my existence, or the family home where pretence ruled.  Reality, like perception,  can be very flexible indeed. I believe I think rather well, can employ scientific method well enough to get my thesis approved at

least. Lol. Am I bitter? Sometimes, when CPTSD takes hold, and the dragons I keep in boxes wreak havoc in my mind. My experience of scientific method as a kid involved some rather brutal  experiments.Apparently you can learn a lot if you are willing to use advanced interrogation techniques. But, most of the time I am grateful for the less

tangible things this journey taught me, how to read people, how to be feral and read ones surroundings, be at one with nature in a way a more civilized person often is not. Much of

this is difficult to explain because it is subliminal. Empathetic on a rather large scale.  My boss tells me this is the best gift I bring to my practice. I try to integrate, thought, emotion, and my connection to the pattern I sense but cannot see. Perhaps I do not explain this very well, poetry rather than prose is my metier. As for surprises, I am amazed

every day that I am still alive, and have been graced with the privilege of serving others. The other children never made it out of adolescence. I am blessed to be able to make their deaths count. Life is good


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 6, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> Of course the miracles of Jesus have been duplicated and surpassed.  A human heart can be removed and replaced with another human heart-what greater miracle do you need?  Was this science, yes.  But still a miracle.
> 
> As far as I know, neither God nor Jesus defined how the miracles were to come about-so science is an accepted method of obtaining miracles.  Religion is not a necessary component of belief in God, but it probably helps




Medical science surpasses biblical miracles?  Well, am not sure about that especially when you consider how St Peter used his shadow to raise thousands of people from death beds and how the dead were brought back to life by Jesus and his apostles. 


~ science is an accepted method of obtaining miracles ~

Some would argue that Moses's parting of the water with a staff was scientific {believe it or not, I actually heard that argument one time}.



~ neither God nor Jesus defined how the miracles were to come about ~

One of Christianity's major failings is that it teaches almost exclusively by commandment rather than by example.  But when you read Jesus's teachings, he continually says "imitate me"*.  Thus he, more often than not, was teaching by example.  In fact, I have seen Christian references to him as the Great Exemplar.  On that basis, the Bible does illustrate how miracles are to take place. 





* 10 Bible verses about Imitating Jesus (knowing-jesus.com)


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> My question came up when I thought why some popular con-men (like the Armstrongs) would pay any attention to a commoner?





Very simply: because churches are institutions that amass large fortunes (all of it untaxed) in the USA  every year and the Armstrongs pocketed millions of dollars from the deluded masses.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> I won’t bore anyone with a clinical perspective, but interestingly enough, my hope burned brightest during the endless crucible of my childhood. As a slave, the only thing I owned was my mind, and the imagination which allowed me inner access to the world I built to escape the horror. That world remains, although I have been blocked from
> 
> entry since I was fourteen, I can still see it as through a window. Sigh. For all its fantasy, that world was far more grounded and sensible  than the paedophile stable which defined my existence, or the family home where pretence ruled.  Reality, like perception,  can be very flexible indeed. I believe I think rather well, can employ scientific method well enough to get my thesis approved at
> 
> ...



My Lady, I'm speechless.... There's a lot I don't know about you and your childhood and I'm grateful that you chose to share it. Other than that... I... wow... I... better keep my mouth shut.... wow....

I know it's cliché but I would be a monster if I didn't say that I'm so, so sorry for what you had to go through. I know it doesn't mean much but it's true and genuine. And I'm really glad that you reached the point to be able to say that "Life is good"... Really, really glad...


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> My Lady, I'm speechless.... There's a lot I don't know about you and your childhood and I'm grateful that you chose to share it. Other than that... I... wow... I... better keep my mouth shut.... wow....
> 
> I know it's cliché but I would be a monster if I didn't say that I'm so, so sorry for what you had to go through. I know it doesn't mean much but it's true and genuine. And I'm really glad that you reached the point to be able to say that "Life is good"... Really, really glad...


Thank you for your kind words.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> Thank you for your kind words.



Please don't thank me... 
Words mean nothing... 
They solve nothing... 
They are worth nothing....
Please don't thank me........................


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 6, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Please don't thank me...
> Words mean nothing...
> They solve nothing...
> They are worth nothing....
> Please don't thank me........................


To a poet, they mean everything. They are jewels harvested from the union of ones subconscious and the Pattern. Born of the labour of imagination, precious children indeed. Loved beyond measure. Imho.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 6, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> All my life I've always wished that I could live the lifestyle where this was all a major part of my life.


Well, sir

If you wish
Or you have a sleep thing to cure

Yer sure welcome to read my not so little thread that started with a five year off grid stint in the mountains
Our version of retirement: Living a childhood dream | Senior Forums


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 6, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> To a poet, they mean everything. They are jewels harvested from the union of ones subconscious and the Pattern. Born of the labour of imagination, precious children indeed. Loved beyond measure. Imho.



Then let me speak those words that will take as much of the pain, as much of the anguish, as much of the demons of the past away. Let my words turn the past into a movie you once watched and cried over but not experienced yourself. My empathy is screaming "Do something! Take her pain away"... Yet I can only sit here, typing nonsense to a person who's suffered so much. 

Powerlessness... Pain... Unbearable pain... Emotion matched with emotion. Tear with tear. Fear with fear. 
I didn't know. 
I didn't know.
I'm so... so sorry.....


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 7, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> Then let me speak those words that will take as much of the pain, as much of the anguish, as much of the demons of the past away. Let my words turn the past into a movie you once watched and cried over but not experienced yourself. My empathy is screaming "Do something! Take her pain away"... Yet I can only sit here, typing nonsense to a person who's suffered so much.
> 
> Powerlessness... Pain... Unbearable pain... Emotion matched with emotion. Tear with tear. Fear with fear.
> I didn't know.
> ...


Thank you again, I am ok, I have walked the high wire without a net all my life, fall often, always get up. I am no longer powerless, and no one can ever take away my dignity again. I offer up my brokenness as a candle in the dark, to those of my beloved clients in the pit, others in agony, and to anyone open to being educated about the resilience of

the human spirit. I often say to my clients, “if you cannot hold your hope  right now, I will hold it for you.” We cry a lot in my office, also. Sometimes I hold their tears until we can grieve together. Healthy stuff, for them and for me. This is

the transformation which makes sense of being waterboarded at nine years old. Most days, it is worth it. An open heart can do many things. If I can survive, and flourish, perhaps so can they.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 7, 2021)

Shalimar said:


> Thank you again, I am ok, I have walked the high wire without a net all my life, fall often, always get up. I am no longer powerless, and no one can ever take away my dignity again. I offer up my brokenness as a candle in the dark, to those of my beloved clients in the pit, others in agony, and to anyone open to being educated about the resilience of
> 
> the human spirit. I often say to my clients, “if you cannot hold your hope  right now, I will hold it for you.” We cry a lot in my office, also. Sometimes I hold their tears until we can grieve together. Healthy stuff, for them and for me. This is
> 
> the transformation which makes sense of being waterboarded at nine years old. Most days, it is worth it. An open heart can do many things. If I can survive, and flourish, perhaps so can they.



My Lady,
I can only offer my utmost respect to you.
Thank you again for sharing!


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 7, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> But these were, I believe, financial decisions. Especially the decision to allow blacks to join and hold the priesthood, just saying. But the LDS priesthood is not comparable to the priesthood of the Catholic Church.
> 
> The fundamental LDS folks still believe in polygamy and still practice it within the state of Utah. Most would be shocked to learn how much it is still here. It’s not just a tv show


I think you are right about these issues being economic, or maybe pollical, however as I understand how the Mormon church works God is in regular communication with their head, the President and Prophet.  So it  seems their God had some role in making these decisions...

You are right polygamy is still practiced in Utah, by a lot of different groups.  However it is not sanctioned by the modern LDS Church and practicing it will get you excommunicated. 

For those less familiar with the LDS or Mormon Church many use those terms interchangeably.  As I understand it they now officially prefer to be called LDS or Later Day Saints, but I don't think Mormon is derogatory.  Their gospel is still the Book of Mormon.  And their Priesthood includes all adult male members in good standing, very different from the Catholics.


oldiebutgoody said:


> I especially made it a point to challenge the cultists Herbert W and Garner T Armstrong of the infamous World Wide Church of God. Two biggest phonies I ever encountered in my life. I dared both of them to have a public debate with me on the subject of their cult's teaching and both of them ran away from me faster than Dracula running away from the Holy Cross.


Been a long time since I heard those names, but remember them well from my youth, Garner Ted in particular.  Used to occasionally listen to their radio show "The World Tomorrow".  Not surprised they weren't interested in your challenge, I think their interest was mostly in fund raising and making money, they didn't see talking to you as a way to help that.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 7, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I think you are right about these issues being economic, or maybe pollical, however as I understand how the Mormon church works God is in regular communication with their head, the President and Prophet.  So it  seems their God had some role in making these decisions...
> 
> You are right polygamy is still practiced in Utah, by a lot of different groups.  However it is not sanctioned by the modern LDS Church and practicing it will get you excommunicated.
> 
> ...


All religions, all churches are financial institutions and the LDS church is especially financial and aggressive about it.  When we first moved here, over forty years ago, the LDS church members came to your house EVERY WEEK, and demanded their piece your pie.  Donation envelopes in their hands.

This church, somehow, had access to your state taxes records, knew exactly how much you made, and demanded their 10 per cent.  Took a while to convince them we were not LDS.

If you believe in God, God is always with you “in your head”, and the head of your regilious leaders who may be called priests, preachers, prophets, and/or pissants As mu dad referred to them before he joined their “racket”.  Depends on whose doing the name calling I suppose, .

Although depending on your political beliefs, God or the Devil is with the President.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 7, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Medical science surpasses biblical miracles?  Well, am not sure about that especially when you consider how St Peter used his shadow to raise thousands of people from death beds and how the dead were brought back to life by Jesus and his apostles.
> 
> 
> ~ science is an accepted method of obtaining miracles ~
> ...


If you believe that all things come from God, then that would include science.  The Bible, as noted, was not written by God and is not a reliable source of information


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 7, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> The Bible, as noted, was not written by God and is not a reliable source of information





The Bible speaks of itself as "plenary inspiration". Every Christian church I know of teaches that. Thus, what you have written there would be considered blasphemous by many of them (not to me, of course).


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 7, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> The Bible speaks of itself as "plenary inspiration". Every Christian church I know of teaches that. Thus, what you have written there would be considered blasphemous by many of them (not to me, of course).


Well, I am not worried, I will not be judged by “every Christian church”-anyone in every Christian church judging me or what I wrote as blasphemous had better read their Bible more carefully.  “Judge not, less you be judged.”  Judgment is left to GOD-something the Bible is extremely clear on.

I will be judged by God.  All the rest is simply dirt blowing in the wind-blah,blah, blah.  Or did you miss that part in reading your “plenary inspiration” of the Bible?  . @oldiebutgoody


----------



## Sunny (Sep 7, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Medical science surpasses biblical miracles?  Well, am not sure about that especially when you consider how St Peter used his shadow to raise thousands of people from death beds and how the dead were brought back to life by Jesus and his apostles.
> 
> 
> ~ science is an accepted method of obtaining miracles ~
> ...



Well, let me put it this way, Oldie.  If you were on the brink of death from a medical condition, but surgery had a good chance of saving you, which would you turn to, the surgeon, or praying to St. Peter to do a miracle with his shadow?  For anyone living in this day and age, in his right mind, the surgeon would definitely "surpass" St. Peter.  Nothing wrong with praying to St. Peter, or Jesus, or whoever, but the surgeon comes first.

Anything quoted from the Bible, and taken as absolute truth, cannot be trusted. Whatever was written thousands of years ago has been subject to so much interpretation and argument, so many changes, and plain old common sense skepticism, that it cannot even be considered on the same level of credibility as science.

About Moses parting the water, somebody once wrote a book (I forget the name, it was a long time ago) conjecturing how many of the "miracle" stories in the Bible were probably true, or how those events came to be.  But according the the author, they were not really miracles. An asteroid came close enough to the earth to cause most of the events described in the book of Exodus (plague, locusts, death by disease, hail, etc.) and the parting of the water which permitted the Jews to escape from slavery was a tsunami.  

I wish I could remember the name of the book; it certainly was food for thought.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 7, 2021)

One mind-boggling theory is that the entire universe originated from the explosion of a tiny "dot" (with no dimensions?) over millions of years into the enormous entity filled with trillions of stars that we have now.

But eventually, it will reverse. Gravity will cause the whole enormity to fall back on itself and once again become a singularity. And that one may once again explode, producing a new universe.

And so on. Maybe it goes on and on, without end. Maybe we are the millionth version of human beings, either in one of those past universes or even (likely) in the present one.  It's like a giant bubble that originates as a tiny dot, then shrinks back into a dot again, then explodes again, and so on.

If I've given anyone a headache, I apologize. The idea came from Stephen Hawking.


----------



## Shero (Sep 7, 2021)

On the question of logic CAKCy and Shalimar are both correct. Logic has the answers and also no answers. Though in a broad sense logic is about valid reasoning, it depends on who is dispensing that logic and in which situation. One cannot apply logic to matters of the heart or spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Shero (Sep 7, 2021)

Sunny said:


> One mind-boggling theory is that the entire universe originated from the explosion of a tiny "dot" (with no dimensions?) over millions of years into the enormous entity filled with trillions of stars that we have now.
> 
> But eventually, it will reverse. Gravity will cause the whole enormity to fall back on itself and once again become a singularity. And that one may once again explode, producing a new universe.
> 
> ...


I guessed!


----------



## feywon (Sep 7, 2021)

@CAKCy said:
"...If new ideas/paradigms are left in the drawer for any reason (publicity, greed, ego etc.) doesn't that make science untrustworthy or a huge conspiracy? The same applies when studies are conducted aiming at reaching a pre-determined conclusion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i can see how you reached that conclusion, however, i don't think there's a 'huge' conspiracy, tho perhaps some small ones in some fields involving some researchers. i suspect most of the decisions to squash research and evidence supporting new ideas is done for reasons of protecting the squasher's own status, job, etc.

As for 'debunking' research, the good news is some such researchers (who even if they don't acknowledge that was their goal, someone who knows a little about human psychology and how research is conducted can tell by how their experiments are set up what their aim was) acknowledge their experiments supported different conclusions than they were looking to find. The grand irony is that modern scanning equipment like fMRIs make some kinds of research harder because they can actually show the activity in various areas of the brain as the research into the effects of things like meditation on the brain. fMRIs were very instrumental in the new acknowledgments of neuroplasticity.  because they showed that the 'brain maps' that were thought to be dedicated to just one thing can be trained to support other body parts sensory gathering, info processing. 

Early on this thread in a response to someone you quoted the 'use it or lose it' axiom.  There are some new ones in neurobiology:  Neurons that fire together, wire together.  Neurons that fire apart, wire apart.  The first being my favorite, it is crucial in being adaptable, changing unwanted habits of any kind.

i've long felt prayer *can* be a form of meditation tho it often is not because of the mind set of the person as they say or think it. Some people repeat standard prayers of their faith by rote without actually thinking about the meaning of the words or really 'feeling' what they are saying. But when the prayers have personal meaning to the speaker, when they say it mindfully, it has a different impact on the brain. This is why both Buddhist Monks and some Catholic Nuns can enter into an 'alpha' state of mind easily--the Buddhist monks label it 'meditation' the Nuns (unless they've had the Silva Meditation training (which when i took the course was free to any clergy of any faith) will use 'prayer'--but the brainwaves of both will change to 'alpha' rhythms. Some lab (maybe several) somewhere have reams of printouts showing that people can consciously choose to change the rhythm of their brainwaves, which matters because at alpha we learn faster and better, and with minimal effort retain more of what we learn in that state. Being at alpha is a kind of self-hypnosis in which you can give yourself post hypnotic suggestions that aid in making wanted changes in your life.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 7, 2021)

Again, all the comments have been about a Judeo/Christian concept of a god. There are tens of thousands of other deities, with worshippers equally convinced their version of a deity is the 'one and only true' version of a deity. How do believers reconcile this problem. For if you say one religion is the "true" religion, then all the others are false.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 7, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> Well, I am not worried, I will not be judged by “every Christian church”-anyone in every Christian church judging me or what I wrote as blasphemous had better read their Bible more carefully.  “Judge not, less you be judged.”  Judgment is left to GOD-something the Bible is extremely clear on.
> 
> I will be judged by God.  All the rest is simply dirt blowing in the wind-blah,blah, blah.  Or did you miss that part in reading your “plenary inspiration” of the Bible?  . @oldiebutgoody




I wrote that some would have that view while I clearly do not.  Hope you didn't miss that part of my post.


----------



## oldiebutgoody (Sep 7, 2021)

Sunny said:


> Well, let me put it this way, Oldie. If you were on the brink of death from a medical condition, but surgery had a good chance of saving you, which would you turn to, the surgeon, or praying to St. Peter to do a miracle with his shadow? For anyone living in this day and age, in his right mind, the surgeon would definitely "surpass" St. Peter. Nothing wrong with praying to St. Peter, or Jesus, or whoever, but the surgeon comes first.




I haven't seen any church services where someone snaps their finger and suddenly people rise from their graves.  This is something promised in the New Testament but the churches fail to deliver on that promise. 





> Anything quoted from the Bible, and taken as absolute truth, cannot be trusted.



Recall that I mentioned above how more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history.  A sad but very real fact that has been fully documented and is historically incontrovertible.




> I wish I could remember the name of the book



Actually, I believe that I read a portion of a book that dealt with that subject.  Like you, just cannot recall its name or writer.


----------



## feywon (Sep 7, 2021)

@Alligatorob said:
"I know religions are slow to admit to things and change, but there are examples of it over time. The best examples I can think of right now are the Mormons. They once supported polygamy and no longer do. They also once did not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and that has changed. I am sure there are other examples in many religions."

One of my boys converted to Mormon faith in his 20's. Even went on a 'mission', tho older that the usual age of missionaries. i had raised my kids with exposure to many religious ideas and philosophies and encouraged them to research thoroughly, and not commit unless they felt they could keep all the tenets of the faith. That the only thing that would upset me would be if they became hypocrites. He no longer practices, larger because despite the fact that while a convert he kept the tenets of the faith better than many raised in it. It became difficult when the local parish showed more support for his cheating wife than for him.

For me the change i want to see is LDS accepting LGBTQ people.   i have never understood how a faith that claims to value family so highly can rationalize ripping families apart by villainizing people for things that are not a matter of choice.


----------



## Alligatorob (Sep 7, 2021)

feywon said:


> For me the change i want to see is LDS accepting LGBTQ people. i have never understood how a faith that claims to value family so highly can rationalize ripping families apart by villainizing people for things that are not a matter of choice.


I think that is probably coming, but slowly.  They did not accept black people as full equals until 1978, pretty slow on the civil rights thing too.  I see some progress being made, one can only hope.


----------



## feywon (Sep 7, 2021)

Alligatorob said:


> I think that is probably coming, but slowly.  They did not accept black people as full equals until 1978, pretty slow on the civil rights thing too.  I see some progress being made, one can only hope.


i know and have in fact said that myself to people for whom that was the main issue. Look at how long the Catholic church has been around and they still haven't. Episcopalians, at least their clergy i've known,  on the other hand tend to adjust to the times a bit more quickly. 

 In religions as well science it often takes the changing of the 'guard' as older generations retire or pass away for changes to come to fruition.


----------



## CAKCy (Sep 7, 2021)

feywon said:


> @CAKCy said:
> "...If new ideas/paradigms are left in the drawer for any reason (publicity, greed, ego etc.) doesn't that make science untrustworthy or a huge conspiracy? The same applies when studies are conducted aiming at reaching a pre-determined conclusion."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> i can see how you reached that conclusion, however, i don't think there's a 'huge' conspiracy, tho perhaps some small ones in some fields involving some researchers. i suspect most of the decisions to squash research and evidence supporting new ideas is done for reasons of protecting the squasher's own status, job, etc.
> ...


I'm glad you can see the logic of my conclusion. Re hugeness of conspiracy: Many small ones (especially for reasons of profit making) added together make a huge conspiracy. For example: There are rumors that cure for cancer _has been _found but it's not made public for profit purposes..


----------



## Aneeda72 (Sep 7, 2021)

CAKCy said:


> I'm glad you can see the logic of my conclusion. Re hugeness of conspiracy: Many small ones (especially for reasons of profit making) added together make a huge conspiracy. For example: There are rumors that cure for cancer _has been _found but it's not made public for profit purposes..


There is no one cure for cancer, just as there is no one vaccine for everything.  Many forms of cancer are curable, many forms are not.  My son had cancer in his stomach, but it was not stomach cancer.  It was testicular cancer, because he had testicular cancer.  It was curable with surgery-removal of the testicular, and chemo for his stomach.

Breast cancer spreads to your bones.  But it is not bone cancer, it’s breast cancer.  Bone cancer is a different cancer.  Therefore, I disagree with anyone who says there is one cure for cancer, there is not.

I have MDS-a rare red blood cell cancer, a long term cancer.  30% of people with MDS get an adult on set leukemia for which there is no cure.  Yet, many forms of leukemia are curable.  Cancer runs in my family like a river.  I wish there was a cure.  However, , there is a vaccine for some cancers given to teenagers.  Go figure.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 7, 2021)

grahamg said:


> I have tried to explain I'm still unsure, twenty years on what it really means to state something seemingly so simple, as "When we SAY there is a god, there is a god, when we SAY there is no god, there is no god", (my first thought twenty years ago was that it couldn't be right because it suggests mankind creates god, not the other way around).
> However, I must have tried to discuss the sermon I'm referring to a few times since then, and realise that's an achievement in itself, by the minister, "making you think"!
> 
> Now my thinking is this, notice the word "SAY".
> ...


All I can say is that this is an interesting (and I mean that sincerely) philosophical take on the difference in this case between "saying" and "believing."  I'm doing  this from memory and know I'm missing something.  There's probably an easy way to find your original story, but I don't know what it is and have no idea how far back through 315 posts it is.


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 7, 2021)

oldiebutgoody said:


> Medical science surpasses biblical miracles?  Well, am not sure about that especially when you consider how St Peter used his shadow to raise thousands of people from death beds and how the dead were brought back to life by Jesus and his apostles.
> 
> 
> ~ science is an accepted method of obtaining miracles ~
> ...


For whatever it is or isn't worth, here's a given explanation of that and of the burning bush:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99580&page=1


----------



## Mitch86 (Sep 20, 2021)

I think we need religion even if we think it is all bunk.  I listen to music about Jesus and Heaven all the time. Yet, I am certain that, when we die, we simply cease to exist.  There is no Heaven and no Hell.  There are an infinite number of galaxies, stars, planets and intelligent species made of solids, liquids or gaseous.  We have religion as humans have had it from the first humans.  It makes us feel we will never cease to exist even though we do.


----------



## grahamg (Sep 20, 2021)

Mitch86 said:


> I think we need religion even if we think it is all bunk.  I listen to music about Jesus and Heaven all the time. Yet, I am certain that, when we die, we simply cease to exist.  There is no Heaven and no Hell.  There are an infinite number of galaxies, stars, planets and intelligent species made of solids, liquids or gaseous.  We have religion as humans have had it from the first humans.  It makes us feel we will never cease to exist even though we do.


I think the wisdom in your words goes very deep, (my father used to talk about people who had minds, "as deep as the oceans", and I'd guess his views were in line with yours, though he never ruled God/religion out altogether!).


----------



## Pepper (Sep 21, 2021)

@Mitch86 
Splendid observation!


----------



## Dancing_Queen (Sep 21, 2021)

Mitch86 said:


> I think we need religion even if we think it is all bunk.  I listen to music about Jesus and Heaven all the time. Yet, I am certain that, when we die, we simply cease to exist.  There is no Heaven and no Hell.  There are an infinite number of galaxies, stars, planets and intelligent species made of solids, liquids or gaseous.  We have religion as humans have had it from the first humans.  It makes us feel we will never cease to exist even though we do.


Why do you listen to music about Jesus as opposed to music about any other "god?"  Unless you do so because you believe it sounds good, in which case it has nothing to do with religion, _my opinion_ is that it must be because you have some belief in Christianity even if you don't believe its tenets.  In other words, Christ means something to you.

Christ means absolutely nothing to me.  I have no need of religion.  When I could see the night ski, before all of the light pollution, I felt awed by it.  I have no need of religion when I have the wonder of the cosmos.


----------



## Lara (Sep 27, 2021)

Mitch86 said:


> I think we need religion even if we think it is all bunk.  I listen to music about Jesus and Heaven all the time. Yet, I am certain that, when we die, we simply cease to exist.  There is no Heaven and no Hell.  There are an infinite number of galaxies, stars, planets and intelligent species made of solids, liquids or gaseous.  We have religion as humans have had it from the first humans.  It makes us feel we will never cease to exist even though we do.





Dancing_Queen said:


> Why do you listen to music about Jesus as opposed to music about any other "god?"  Unless you do so because you believe it sounds good, in which case it has nothing to do with religion, _my opinion_ is that it must be because you have some belief in Christianity even if you don't believe its tenets.  In other words, Christ means something to you.
> 
> Christ means absolutely nothing to me.  I have no need of religion.  When I could see the night ski, before all of the light pollution, I felt awed by it.  I have no need of religion when I have the wonder of the cosmos.


Yes Mitch. Like Dancing Queen says...sounds like "Christ means something to you" or you wouldn't enjoy Christian music so much. 
You receive comfort, peace, trust, security, kindness from the music. You feel loved and protected. Why not fold your hands and bow your head and just tell God that through Jesus...that you are grateful for his music and ask Him to lead you through this transitional phase of your life. Keep us updated.


----------

