I am an Atheist and always have been.

JustDave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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. :eek: 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.
 
VaughanJB said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
JustDave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
VaughanJB said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?”
 
VaughanJB said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
:)
Vida May said:
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!
Click to expand...
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?

Vida May said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Vida May said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rich said:
Moreover, science is not afraid to admit that it got it wrong. All that means is that more research is required.
Click to expand...
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.
:)
 
Last edited:
VaughanJB said:
See, this another thing for me. Sure, some emphasize the HISTORICAL content and discount the fictional bits. But it kind of falls apart for me when it comes to miracles. I doubt anything could convince me that a snake "spoke" without some fictional liberties being taken. And how about Moses having a chat with a burning bush (yes, I know it was God using the Bush as a cosmic telephone)?

I mean parting the Red Sea - really? I suppose blind faith allows such things to pass, but my addled brain simply says - nah, the specifics there are made up. :D
Click to expand...

I dont believe those things either - but it still isnt exactly fiction - meaning person who wrote it didnt do so knowing he made it up and his readers also know that and he knows they do.

It is myth or legend - ie a known story through oral tradition that somebody put in writing believing it to be true and expecting his readers to also believe so.
 
C50 said:
Historical fiction is a semi fictionalized story based on known facts, events and/or people.
It's a combination of real and imagined senerios, supposition and exaggeration, myth and legend.

Sounds like the bible to me.
Click to expand...


No not exactly.

I read a lot of historical fiction - and yes the better ones have done their research well and facts and people are presented accurately. But they are also fiction - ie the author made up gaps in knowledge, sometimes takes poetic licence with known facts and puts their own interpretation on known events and makes up conversations, character's intentions, feelings, adds other made up characters etc etc.
and meant to be read i n that light - ie we all know the author did that

a historical fiction book about, say, - Mary Queen of Scots, is different to a biography of her

The Red Tent (very good book) is an example of historical fiction based on a biblical story. It is different to the bible account, for the reasons given above

The bible is not meant to be read i n that light and is written as a recording of oral traditions, much of it re created from memory years after the events, and much of it , like most oral traditions, exagerated i n the telling - ie myths or legends with some basis in fact.
Not quite the same as fiction.
 
rbtvgo said:
It is very difficult to understand or respond to post. If I have offended you in any way. I am sorry. Not my intention
Click to expand...
You have chosen a post of mine and hit the reply button. My post you're replying to was deleted hours ago, after only briefly appearing on the board, and it says "deleted" - so there is nothing to reply to.

You have not offended me nor did I assume any intent to do so, but if it's okay with you, as much as it certainly is with me, it will most likely work to our mutual advantage if we simply discontinue interacting with each other.
 
I think the question is flawed.
For an Atheist will always ask "How could a God allow so much misery and suffering in this world?"
But they will never ask "How could the Devil allow me to enjoy the birth of my child or this beautiful sunset?"...etc.
I'm more spiritual than religious but humble enough to believe in a higher power.
 
rbtvgo said:
It is very difficult to understand or respond to post. If I have offended you in any way. I am sorry. Not my intention
Click to expand...
What you said to me may be justified. As I think on it, I honestly don't know what I said, and that is why I asked you to copy and paste what you were refering to. But I do believe your intentions are good, and I am having way too much fun in this thread to get hung up on I said, you said, bickering. Especially knowing you mean well, and yes, it can be very hard responding to posts.

We have different points of view and come with our own axes to grind. I could have said something in a bad way. Heavens knows that would be the first for me and probably not the last. I get caught up in the moment and say things I regret. So I want to say, I am sorry, will you forgive me?
 
Beezer said:
I think the question is flawed.
For an Atheist will always ask "How could a God allow so much misery and suffering in this world?"
But they will never ask "How could the Devil allow me to enjoy the birth of my child or this beautiful sunset?"...etc.
I'm more spiritual than religious but humble enough to believe in a higher power.
Click to expand...
Carl Jung and Edgar Cayce had a lot to say about what is going on in our brains and what we need to do to advance spiritually. We all have a subconscious. I was too young to have a vocabulary when I was traumatized by being put in a body cast. I had no memory of that, but my mother told of it, and there are pictures of me in the cast and being X-rayed.

My point is, I had post-traumatic stress disorder, and my life was really crazy for a period in my life when I was an adult. Without words in my head to describe my experience, and absolutely no understanding of PTSD, seeing counselors was not helping me, until by chance I found the necessary information about traumatized children and PTSD.

It was very frightening to go through what I was experiencing. I thought maybe I was possessed by Satan. Satanism had become very popular and was on most people's minds. And a well-meaning Christian explained that Satan was causing the problem. Thank heavens I decided there is no Satan, and what I felt, thought, and did was completely on me. I was able to hold my act together until I presented a counselor with the facts about my PTSD, and he regressed me to that point in time, and healed my life.

I know Christians mean well, but a belief in Satan can lead to serious harm.
 
A big problem with the Bible is that it begins as only a Jewish point of view. Rome expelled them from the region that became Palestine, and if we are looking for history, we might want to consider different points of view.

Also, as finding Troy does not prove the Greek gods are real, neither does finding artifacts of the Hebrew occupation of a land prove their god is real.

The next problem is that Christians don't agree with each other. When Christianity became a strong religion, they started killing each other over the thought that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost means 3 gods, and others accepted the Greek concept of the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one God.

We made freedom of religion a law in part to stop Christians from killing each other. Today, Jews kill Christians and Muslims and Muslims kill Jews, and the US kills anyone who threatens their control of oil and does so in the name of God.

Billy Graham did a lovely Christmas show about how God wants us to send our sons and daughters into the war going on that year. And today, ministers are telling us our current President is God's choice for our leader. Non-profit organizations do not have to pay taxes as long as they remain non-political. I think some ministers have crossed that line.
 
JustDave said:
The universe does have control over one overriding human experience, but I don't think it uses logic or even needs such a thing to exert that force, but I agree about exploring these controlling forces through science. And science does it far more elegantly than any mythology as it goes about understanding a universe that creates awe and wonder beyond our current grasp. It also leaves the door open for human made religions, which seem little more that minor quirks in a much greater quest to understand.
Click to expand...
The latest explanation of how trees and mushrooms communicate may change your mind about consciousness. To assume communication is not possible without human language could be an error.

This AI explanation is a stretch for our minds, and I believe that is necessary to understand the significance of the universe as a web of information.

Trees and mushrooms communicate through an underground, symbiotic network of fungal filaments called mycelium. Known as the "wood wide web," this network connects tree roots to share nutrients, water, and resources, and to pass on warning signals about dangers like disease or insects, enabling trees to support each other.
Click to expand...
 
Vida May said:
The next problem is that Christians don't agree with each other. When Christianity became a strong religion, they started killing each other over the thought that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost means 3 gods, and others accepted the Greek concept of the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one God.
Click to expand...

Calvin let a Jewish christian, Servettus, get burned on the stake because he did not believe the Trinity.
A guy warned Calvin, but he refused to listen and they still worship him as if he is saint Nicholas. Calvin, the guy who came with calvinism.

John 16, this is what Jesus said:

yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. 3 And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.


And 1 John 2:11

But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.

Vida May said:
Billy Graham did a lovely Christmas show about how God wants us to send our sons and daughters into the war going on that year.
Click to expand...
Really? Wow.

No way.
https://mountainx.com/opinion/billy-graham-an-old-soldier-fades-away/

Oh pfew.

(On his advice to various presidents) 'If I had to do it again, I would also avoid any appearance of involvement in party politics. An evangelist is called to do only one thing: to preach the gospel. Becoming involved in political issues or party politics undermines the impact of the evangelist and compromises his message.’

8 markante uitspraken van Billy Graham | Otheo
 
Last edited:
Vida May said:
The latest explanation of how trees and mushrooms communicate may change your mind about consciousness. To assume communication is not possible without human language could be an error.

This AI explanation is a stretch for our minds, and I believe that is necessary to understand the significance of the universe as a web of information.
Click to expand...
No, how trees and mushrooms communicate doesn't change how I define "consciousness." Plants can communicate through chemical means, although they don't think about what they are doing. In that way, they are like humans who react chemically through hormones, without understanding why they do it. But I certainly don't see the chemical processes in plants as magical, nor am I impressed by it. It's just what they have evolved to do.

My BIL sent me a book on this exact topic about trees and mushrooms, but the book tried too hard to emphasize that it was in someway a secret intelligence, and even presented in such a way that it might invite a spiritual viewpoint. It's biochemistry, which I hate to call "simple" biochemistry. It's complicated enough so that some people see it as magical. It's not. It's just complicated, and something we don't even know about when it's happening.

How does a mindless human cell in the mitochondria know that another cell in a remote part of the body is needing help to make a vital repair? Our cells communicate this through chemicals carried about in blood cells. When the DNA of a hospital cell is notified it quickly fashions a strand of RNA and sends it into the blood stream where the affected cell finds it and fashions a repair part of DNA to save itself. It all happens very fast, with us humans not giving it a single thought, or an awareness of this happening, and it's going on all day long all over our body. It's biochemistry.

As for my definition of consciousness, it's a part of the brain of higher animals. Dogs have it, and we can recognize it in them, but it has evolved in humans into something that we consider "higher intelligence," and can use it to rationally (or alternatively, irrationally) respond. We can use it to solve, understand, create mysteries, and imagine. It's not perfect, we can't even trust our memories of past experience that well. It can even cause trouble for ourselves. Don't get me wrong, as flawed as it can be, it can be a very powerful asset that the so called lower life forms don't have access to.
 
Last edited:
January said:
I dont believe those things either - but it still isnt exactly fiction - meaning person who wrote it didnt do so knowing he made it up and his readers also know that and he knows they do.

It is myth or legend - ie a known story through oral tradition that somebody put in writing believing it to be true and expecting his readers to also believe so.
Click to expand...
I think many of the earliest "learned men" were scribes. They were smart enough to read and write, and that put them at the top shelf of "learned." The way I understand it is that their goal was to make written records of oral traditions, or to make copies of other written records. They were not expected to be keen observers or investigators, although some of them probably were, but that was not their job. Fiction or not fiction was not their job to differentiate.

I watched a fun episode on the Discovery Channel or something like it years ago that did a two hour piece on the 100 most influential persons in the last one thousand years. I waited almost breathlessly to see who they would finally name "most influential" at the end of the program. It surprised me because I never gave the guy one bit of thought over the previous two hours. It was Johannes Gutenberg. And when I thought about it, I was in full agreement. He made a way to dispense information to learned men all over the globe, not just some scribe in the next cell over. And collectively minds could come together to compare notes, debate, and try to make sense out of it all.
 
I wonder if what Helen Keller experienced gives us a clue to what consciousness is and how it arises. She describes her world before her awakening as "nothingness". She had no awareness of anything, just like a worm. :) Then at the water pump she connected the water she was experiencing with the label w-a-t-e-r. When we developed language, that is when consciousness starts.

Being conscious doesn't include awareness or understanding. We don't know how the brain/mind makes consciousness/understanding. This is where we begin to mythify it's nature.
 
Paco Dennis said:
I wonder if what Helen Keller experienced gives us a clue to what consciousness is and how it arises. She describes her world before her awakening as "nothingness". She had no awareness of anything, just like a worm. :) Then at the water pump she connected the water she was experiencing with the label w-a-t-e-r. When we developed language, that is when consciousness starts.

Being conscious doesn't include awareness or understanding. We don't know how the brain/mind makes consciousness/understanding. This is where we begin to mythify it's nature.
Click to expand...
I've wondered where it starts too. I have considered with language, as it has sometimes been supposed. But I'm not sure about that. I have this feeling that it goes a bit deeper and is a predecessor to language, rather than a result of language. Or maybe something that happened at the same time. Haven't made up my mind. Fortunately, it's not on my critical list of things to do.

At some point in higher intelligence consciousness or sentience develops, and between what we call lower animals and us, there seems to be a gradual transition where sentience and reason begins to show up. I would argue that reason is not fully developed in humans, but we are given the capacity use reason, or more accurately maybe to fumble with reason. But we are not on par with Mr. Spock.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top