I am an Atheist and always have been.

[Vida May]

This is what is so appealing about Pantheism. It requires no human qualities or supernatural sentience or leaps of logic to be deeply revered. It is certainly greater than all of us, who are mere infinitesimal parts of it's sum, and we would not be here without it, even if it takes no interest in our personal lives or requires nothing from us or for us.

I have to get back to you tomorrow. You are talking so many interesting things!

As I understand the gods, as we are doing with atomic particles, naming a new one, and then another one... people named new gods every time they realized a new concept, until the whole god and goddess system was overwhelming, and the pharaoh of Egypt commanded the worship of one god and only one god!

However, our intelligence had to have many gods and goddesses interacting with each other to begin the process of thinking that has brought us so far. This intellectual progress would have never started with only one God and no one to argue with him. By turning concepts into gods and having them interact with each other, our intelligence exploded into a reality of knowledge we would have never known without them.

Imagine being limited to one God and one Bible. Well, some of you know how religion can prevent progress. The Dark Age came with the power of the church and didn't end until the Church lost its grip on our thinking and speaking, music, and art. Today, our gods and goddesses have the names of science and also come in the form of other nations with different cultures.

Being dependent on an exclusive religion is not good for a world with atomic weapons and leaders who think they are gods. And like Billy Graham would have us believe, the world is evil and God wants us fighting evil with young men and women drafted into wars.

 

[JustDave]

Does it? I think it dos the very opposite of open the door. I think it is gradually closing the door, and that to have a true belief in the Christian God you have to be, at least partly, a science denier. Am I being unfair?

Not necessarily. Science doesn't leave the door open as an encouragement to promote mythology. It doesn't intend to close any doors. It is an independent search to understand through reason unaffected by desire, ignorance, and ego defense. Sure some scientists are affected by these things, but the philosophy of science is not.

And yes some doors do get closed, but through no malicious treachery on the part of science. Science just replaces thousands of years old decrees by the monk and shaman. Religion struggles to keep the doors of mythology open, and they will always succeed, I think. But maybe I don't give our species enough credit.

It is curious some of our better minds that made some of greatest discoveries about the universe were made by Catholic Priests using reason, observation, and measurement, only to be excommunicated from the church for their contradiction to church dogma. Later to be forgiven, but not before their lives had been ruined.

Even Darwin sat on his observations and conclusions for ten years so as not to offend his religion. And even when he presented his idea, which could have been wrong, if later it had not been supported by one subsequent discovery after another, he has been vilified as doing the work of the Devil. The doors of stubbornness will always be held open. Although, they seem to be used by fewer and fewer over the centuries. I don't know if that trend will continue. I think it will, but cannot be certain.

 

[VaughanJB]

Not necessarily. Science doesn't leave the door open as an encouragement to promote mythology. It doesn't intend to close any doors. It is an independent search to understand through reason unaffected by desire, ignorance, and ego defense. Sure some scientists are affected by these things, but the philosophy of science is not.

And yes some doors do get closed, but through no malicious treachery on the part of science. Science just replaces thousands of years old decrees by the monk and shaman. Religion struggles to keep the doors of mythology open, and they will always succeed, I think. But maybe I don't give our species enough credit.

It is curious some of our better minds that made some of greatest discoveries about the universe were made by Catholic Priests using reason, observation, and measurement, only to excommunicated from the church for their contradiction to church dogma. Later to be forgiven, but not before their lives had been ruined.

Even Darwin sat on his observations and conclusions for ten years so as not to offend his religion. And even when he presented his idea, which could have been wrong, if later it had not been supported by one subsequent discovery after another, he has been vilified as doing the work of the Devil. The doors of stubbornness will always be held open. Although, they seem to be used by fewer and fewer over the centuries. I don't know if that trend will continue. I think it will, but cannot be certain.

I agree, science has no intent other than truth. Verifiable truth through meticulous examination of the universe. There's nothing malicious or predatory about it, it's simply a process.

That said, so called blind faith obfuscates everything in its path.

 

[JustDave]

Why is a flat plain not meaningful space?

It's very meaningful to ants and bacteria, even if they don't understand that a flat plain is still part of something that is physically greater, and that something greater could only be an unimportant theoretical whim.

 

[Rich]

So, the US government released some previously withheld documents and videos (all very grainy and somewhat vague) regarding UFO's yesterday.
Which got me thinking.
IF it was proven beings from another planet are real, and IF they had either an entirely different creator, or no creator at all in their stories/books - would those with a belief in God as our creator have to question their belief, or would they assume that God must have done some uncredited work?

This just seems like a great place to re-post this old joke...

Humans finally make contact with an alien civilization. They’re peaceful, friendly, and incredibly advanced. During the diplomatic exchange, one human diplomat casually asks:
“Do you have religion? Do you know anything about God?”
The alien replies:
“Oh, sure. God visits our world every year. Lovely fellow. The first time he came, we welcomed him with a parade and offered him our finest delicacies — especially chocolate. He loved the chocolate.”
The Pope, who is part of the delegation, is stunned.
“You… you see God every year? He hasn’t visited Earth in thousands of years!”

The alien tilts his head, confused.
“Well… what did you do the first time he stopped by?”

 

[Rich]

I agree, science has no intent other than truth. Verifiable truth through meticulous examination of the universe. There's nothing malicious or predatory about it, it's simply a process.

That said, so called blind faith obfuscates everything in its path.

Moreover, science is not afraid to admit that it got it wrong. All that means is that more research is required. Religion isn't that way, they seem stuck on a story from thousands of years ago.

 

[VaughanJB]

Moreover, science is not afraid to admit that it got it wrong. All that means is that more research is required. Religion isn't that way, they seem stuck on a story from thousands of years ago.

100%. In fact, science is never definitive. There is always room for more learning, new discoveries, and ideas. It's the insatiable desire for progress.

 

[JustDave]

As I understand the gods, as we are doing with atomic particles, naming a new one, and then another one... people named new gods every time they realized a new concept, until the whole god and goddess system was overwhelming, and the pharaoh of Egypt commanded the worship of one god and only one god!

I suppose having one god for everything would eliminate some of the "My god is better than your god" squabbles between religious factions. Or may it's all the pharaoh could keep track of. Oh wait the Pharaoh was a god. Hmmm, does this tell us something about what gods strive for?

However, our intelligence had to have many gods and goddesses interacting with each other to begin the process of thinking that has brought us so far. This intellectual progress would have never started with only one God and no one to argue with him. By turning concepts into gods and having them interact with each other, our intelligence exploded into a reality of knowledge we would have never known without them.

I'm not familiar with that theory. I'll think about it. I was going to say that in modern times having only one god for our advancement in true knowledge, doesn't seem to need extra gods. But then there's India, a strong contender for national power, which suggests one god or many may not be a modern day factor, but I'm not very knowledgeable about India. Do they discover or copy? I don't know.

Being dependent on an exclusive religion is not good for a world with atomic weapons and leaders who think they are gods. And like Billy Graham would have us believe, the world is evil and God wants us fighting evil with young men and women drafted into wars.

It doesn't seem to create a feeling of safety at all. I don't know if things would be different without gods. Man controls politics and strives for power over others, and we wouldn't think about gods if man hadn't come up with the concept of them to begin with. And as I've said before, a world without a god, or one that works independently of a god, suspiciously seems to resemble a world with a god that people claim is what we have right now.

 

[JustDave]

Moreover, science is not afraid to admit that it got it wrong. All that means is that more research is required.

This is the strength that insures science of continual progress. To the religious, at least the ones who claim to speak for all, this is the curse of science that proves it is wrong and always will be wrong. Anyone who changes his mind so easily is a flip flopper. Once you have an idea, you stick with through rain or shine.

But it is true that some of our legendary thinkers in science held onto false ideas even until their death. I mean big guns like Isaac Newton who fearlessly dated the age of the Earth at 6000 years, and walking brain, Lord Kelvin who brought us so much in the first and second Laws of Thermo Dynamics, bumbled on I can't remember what.

I have a book that goes through some of the most contentious scientific debates, before things were finally proven. There are so many that I jumble them all up in my head. But science goes on discovering a little here and a little there, and it doesn't make any difference what your name is or what you want, and just because you discovered Avogadro's Law of Gaseous Volumes, doesn't mean you are right about everything else.