grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
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!
Religion: The views of an agnostic
- Thread starter CAKCy
- Start date
CAKCy
Member
- Location
- Cyprus, East Mediterranean
I wish all evangelizing was practiced by people like you, Sir!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!
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
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
Member
- Location
- Cyprus, East Mediterranean
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
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
Dancing_Queen
Member
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)
I'll do my best to understand what is available and help, if I can!
This might help:
spectratg
Senior Member
- Location
- Adamstown, MD
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. "
"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
Member
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
Member
I'm just curious -- what's the reference for this? You're quoting something -- what? Thanks!
Interesting definitions. It sounds like there is a lot of overlap between strong agnosticism and weak atheism.
grahamg
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
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)?
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
Member
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
Well-known Member
- Location
- Rural North Central NM
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--everybody 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.
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--everybody 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.
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
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
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
Last edited:
Dancing_Queen
Member
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
Old codger
- Location
- South of Manchester, UK
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)?
(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?
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)?
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?
Last edited:
feywon
Well-known Member
- Location
- Rural North Central NM
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.The brain should not be allowed to relax.
It's a "use it or lose it" game
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
Member
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.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?
So, I can't imagine that science will ever have "proof" of the existence of god.
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
Member
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.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)?
Okay, but can you see why someone would think this is what you think others should do:
(your 3.57pm 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?
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
Member
- Location
- Cyprus, East Mediterranean
Good job you didn't watch me responding the an arrogant driver yesterday!
You are but a human!
CAKCy
Member
- Location
- Cyprus, East Mediterranean
Beautiful!
CAKCy
Member
- Location
- Cyprus, East Mediterranean
Thank you!
Based on the above I would choose weak agnosticism just because of my strong belief in science!