Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[sealybobo]

a. I look around and see no evidence of god(s). As far as the gods in the holy books, I'm an atheist. Don't buy it for one second. Willing to bet my soul on it.
b. It's unknowable if God continues to hide. You would have to be a god yourself to know 100% for sure because you'd have to look everywhere not only in this universe but in all the other rhelms such as heaven to see if he's hiding.

We live in a physical world. God is spirit. What physical evidence is expected to materialize?

Second, God is not hiding anymore than those living in the desert can claim all the dolphins are hiding.

Finally, too many only see the Bible through the lens of twenty-first century language, history, and culture and therefore haven't a clue, let alone the faintest idea of what the original authors were saying--and how their accounts were perceived by the original audience.

No. I can go look in the ocean and verify if dolphins exist. If God exists only in another rhelm, how do you know about him? He visited? Then visit me.

So you are saying religion isn't standing up to the test of time?

We have an idea at what the authors were trying to say. Everything and anythign to get you to buy in to the cult. And it worked.

And no. I disagree actually. I am able to put myself in the greeks mindset 1900 years ago when they bought the stories from Paul. What amazes me is people still to this day buy the stories. But then again a lot of people believe in ghosts and witches too so we are still a pretty primitive species.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Gravity can't be explained scientifically.

Of course it can:

A warping of space caused by mass within that space.

Explained. What sort of explanation are you looking for?

Why does that happen?

Gravity mysteries: What is gravity?

The Newtonian idea of gravity was nice and simple, then Einstein turned things upside down, and even that isn't the end of the story

www.newscientist.com

We don't know. Again you are describing what happens, not explaining why it happens.

As Fort Fun knows, I happen to fundamentally disagree with his (and Einstein's.. along with practically the entire current scientific status quo's..) theory regarding this (what gravity is). However, I recognize his as both a scientific theory and one having a lot of consensus in support. That equals a measure of "We knowing" by scientific definition. Having a scientifically, unfalsifiable, repeatably testable theory.. is knowing something. Certainly more than can be said for any gods. The math, at least, works out . The logic and results otherwise are where I take issue and opt for, what seems to me at least, a far more satisfying overall explanation, effectively resulting in the same math. But I'm not going to devote the next ten years required to deprogram you or anyone else here trying to explain it all. Been there, tested that idea. Doing so just proved a waste of my time.

Suffice it to say, you or "newscientist.com" declaring something a "mystery" doesn't logically qualify it as such for everyone("We"). Have you even tried Googling "Theories explaining gravity" or the equivalent, for example? Try it. I think you'll find lots to chew on.. Don't just look at the first results..

 

[Andylusion]

Gravity can't be explained scientifically.

Of course it can:

A warping of space caused by mass within that space.

Explained. What sort of explanation are you looking for?

Why does that happen?

Gravity mysteries: What is gravity?

The Newtonian idea of gravity was nice and simple, then Einstein turned things upside down, and even that isn't the end of the story

www.newscientist.com

We don't know. Again you are describing what happens, not explaining why it happens.

As Fort Fun knows, I happen to fundamentally disagree with his (and Einstein's.. along with practically the entire current scientific status quo's..) theory regarding this (what gravity is). However, I recognize his as both a scientific theory and one having a lot of consensus in support. That equals a measure of "We knowing" by scientific definition. Having a scientifically, unfalsifiable, repeatably testable theory.. is knowing something. Certainly more than can be said for any gods. The math, at least, works out . The logic and results otherwise are where I take issue and opt for, what seems to me at least, a far more satisfying overall explanation, effectively resulting in the same math. But I'm not going to devote the next ten years required to deprogram you or anyone else here trying to explain it all. Been there, tested that idea. Doing so just proved a waste of my time.

Suffice it to say, you or "newscientist.com" declaring something a "mystery" doesn't logically qualify it as such for everyone("We"). Have you even tried Googling "Theories explaining gravity" or the equivalent, for example? Try it. I think you'll find lots to chew on.. Don't just look at the first results..

Yeah, don't waste your time trying to "deprogram" me. You can't. It's impossible, because I have met G-d. I knew he exists, because he has directly answered prayers, in real direct ways.

He's as real to me as you are. In fact, more real in some ways, because I only know you as "Grumblenuts" which is nothing. You could be anywhere, doing anything. You could be a bot, or cutting and pasting this from some other person. Who knows. And same for me, right?

But G-d to me, has directly moved in my life. He is there. He hears my prayers. He doesn't always answer how I want, but he does answer.

So... yeah, you are not going to de-program me, or whatever. Not going to happen.

I love science. I read science articles for fun. My favorite topic of choice is nuclear physics. Now I'm no expert or something, but I enjoy science.

And sure I've read articles on "Theories explaining gravity" Sure. They explain very well the math of how gravity works. They explain what gravity does. They explain very well the mechanics involved.

"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

Right?

But what science cannot answer is.... why? Why does this happen? We can calculate it. We can demonstrate it. We can document and describe it. But it still doesn't explain.... why?

Sure we have hypothesis. That's great. But, anyone can make a guess.

My only statement in this thread was, the OP said Science can explain everything. No... it can't. Science can do many many things, but it can't "explain everything".

Here's a thought. Use science in nature, to explain morality. You certainly don't see morality in nature. Nor does the science of the material world explain morality. So where did the idea that something can be morally right or morally wrong, if we're just animals from evolution?

 

[zaangalewa]

a. I look around and see no evidence of god(s). As far as the gods in the holy books, I'm an atheist. Don't buy it for one second. Willing to bet my soul on it.
b. It's unknowable if God continues to hide. You would have to be a god yourself to know 100% for sure because you'd have to look everywhere not only in this universe but in all the other rhelms such as heaven to see if he's hiding.

We live in a physical world. God is spirit. What physical evidence is expected to materialize?

Second, God is not hiding anymore than those living in the desert can claim all the dolphins are hiding.

Finally, too many only see the Bible through the lens of twenty-first century language, history, and culture and therefore haven't a clue, let alone the faintest idea of what the original authors were saying--and how their accounts were perceived by the original audience.

No. I can go look in the ocean and verify if dolphins exist. ...

And now try to imagine a dolphin, who creates all existence - what do you see?

 

[zaangalewa]

The Hebrew portion of the Bible in particular depicts a viciously angry, vindictive god who is only marginally less angry in Christian theology. A ''god of love'' who behaves as is delineated in the Bible is an utter contradiction.

Yes, as utter contradiction, which takes us to story constructs. These accounts are not news accounts--they were all written well after the fact. It strikes me that God seems part of the setting rather than an actual character.

Yes, accounts written hundreds of years after alleged events. Generations of re-telling would suggest that tales are changed and embellished.

People believe that Robin Hood was a real person.

Robin Hood and William Tell were not existing - but they moved and move the world. Very important persons. So what means "not-existence"?

 

[Grumblenuts]

try to imagine a dolphin, who creates all existence - what do you see?

The exact same thing as imagining some god doing it. Silliness.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here's a thought. Use science in nature, to explain morality. You certainly don't see morality in nature. Nor does the science of the material world explain morality. So where did the idea that something can be morally right or morally wrong, if we're just animals from evolution?

Declare stuff.. Demand stuff.. Rinse and repeat..
I easily see morality in nature. You don't. Oh well..

 

[Andylusion]

Here's a thought. Use science in nature, to explain morality. You certainly don't see morality in nature. Nor does the science of the material world explain morality. So where did the idea that something can be morally right or morally wrong, if we're just animals from evolution?

Declare stuff.. Demand stuff.. Rinse and repeat..
I easily see morality in nature. You don't. Oh well..

Where?

 

[BreezeWood]

Or another example: The spirituality of pyhsics we call normally mathematics.

That's not what is meant by "God is spirit". It's a magical idea. "Transcends the material"... said over and over, in this thread.

The only way evidence is possible is in a material, deterministic framework. If no determinism (causality), no evidence. Enter "magic!", and you have already disqualified yourself from use of any evidence.

The only way evidence is possible is in a material, deterministic framework. If no determinism (causality), no evidence. Enter "magic!", and you have already disqualified yourself from use of any evidence.

.
somewhat true but not unusual in the least -

the metaphysical, spiritual content of physiology is evidentiary as noted previously, evolution is the expression of the spirituality that when removed causes the physical physiology to disappear - living beings are the evidence of spirituality and physiology as a metaphysical substance not native to planet Earth.

the combination, spiritual content / physiology are one in the same substantively though inseparable.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I see what is deemed currently inexplicable through objective, scientific means in no way limiting what may be objectively explicable in the future. I have no problem calling such stuff metaphysical in the meantime.

 

[Meriweather]

No. I can go look in the ocean and verify if dolphins exist. If God exists only in another rhelm, how do you know about him? He visited? Then visit me.

Ah, you will go to the dolphins...but God must come to you? Why not you go to God, just as you would go to the dolphins?

 

[zaangalewa]

... But then again a lot of people believe in ghosts and witches too so we are still a pretty primitive species.

Some people for example believe machines are able to speak and to think - what's nonsense since hundreds of years - now it's called "science fiction" and nearly everyone believes this nonsense.

And in Germany we have for example a law, which activates a right of resistence against everyone, who likes to change the ghost of our constitution. This ghost is a very real ghost.

And the belief in witches was in the time, which the English speaking world often calls "the dark ages", only seen as a prejudice. This phenomenon started in modern times after reformation. Protestants burned 90% witches and 10% sorcerers. Catholics 50% witches and 50% sorcerers. And where the Catholic inquisiton was strong (very modern systems in their times of history) nearly never witches were burned.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Here's a thought. Use science in nature, to explain morality. You certainly don't see morality in nature. Nor does the science of the material world explain morality. So where did the idea that something can be morally right or morally wrong, if we're just animals from evolution?

Declare stuff.. Demand stuff.. Rinse and repeat..
I easily see morality in nature. You don't. Oh well..

Where?

"Here's a thought." Google it. Duh!

 

[Meriweather]

So you are saying religion isn't standing up to the test of time?

Time has a way of changing all things. It is not so much religion not standing up to the test of time, it clearly has. However, I do believe it wise to be aware of at what point in time a change occurred. My favorite example is with Bishop in the 1600s. He decided that based on an English translation from the Hebrew, he could calculate the age of the earth.

In the late 1800s, there came the advent of "Rapture", once again redefining a word during its translation.

I've been speaking how it is best that the Bible be studied, not read--an ancient Jewish proverb that was tossed out the window by some during the 1500s and the Protestant Reformation. Some decided the Bible could be easily understood during a single reading by anyone.

And, don't get me started on "End Times".

 

[Meriweather]

We have an idea at what the authors were trying to say. Everything and anythign to get you to buy in to the cult. And it worked.

Actually, much of the Bible is better understood in terms of politics. The groups of the Bible were as much of a "cult" then as Democrats and Republicans are "cults" today.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, accounts written hundreds of years after alleged events. Generations of re-telling would suggest that tales are changed and embellished.

People believe that Robin Hood was a real person.

Exactly! Ask the average person what they really know about Robin Hood and they will respond that he robbed the rich and gave to the poor. They may or may not know whether he was an actual person, or simply a story woven around an event of two. What people best remember is the theme--robbing the rich to give to the poor. What are the themes remembered from Biblical stories--and are they the same themes that presented themselves to the original author and audience?

I can’t say I know what, if any, themes as presented in the Bible reflect an original author (with regard to the oft-named apostles). Original authors of the Bible are in question thus any original themes are in question. One seemingly obvious question to the gods would be “why did you put your message in a book written by largely unknown humans who corrupted some alleged holy message with errors and contradictions.”

 

[Hollie]

I think Robin Hood was a person to be admired. I guess I can ignore the reality of Robin Hood being fictional and worship him anyway.

Or...we could take away the lesson and see if we can apply it to our own lives.

Yes, some lessons are uplifting and valuable as to how to conduct yourself properly. Others, not so much. A lesson I learned from others, and one I see others have learned for themselves is that belief can cause divisions and tribalism and hate/distrust for those outside of the circle of like minded believers. I do find real arrogance in that believers are often quick to point out that their conception of the faith is true and inerrant in comparison to the conceptions of others and that can be a group and/or individual bias.

 

[zaangalewa]

try to imagine a dolphin, who creates all existence - what do you see?

The exact same thing as imagining some god doing it. Silliness.

I have to give you back your compliment. You are an agressive idiot, who tries to avoid to think. Imagine it was nothing - and then "suddenly" was something - including space and time. That's an idea which is about 1700 years old in the Christian world. His word of creation is timeless. This qualitative idea - interesting, but not really necessary for the Christian faith - finds a nice quantitative realisation in the theory of relativity.

I would say the very big problem of atheists is often the little word "not". Yes and no are not like + and - in mathematics or 0 and 1 in a computer. Example: If somehting is not a stone - then this something is able to be everything what is not a stone. But no one knows everything. Not to know everything makes no one silly. So to say: "it was not this way" means only it was an unknown other way - but not which way. In the end knows no one anything any longer. And in a situation of nothing god created the world. Was god existing when he created existence? Who knows? If he exists not now - will he exist in the next second? Who knows? Do you really think all others, who do not think like you are doing, are only silly? If so: What made you unsilly? How to prove this?

 

[Hollie]

Gravity can't be explained scientifically.

Of course it can:

A warping of space caused by mass within that space.

Explained. What sort of explanation are you looking for?

Why does that happen?

Gravity mysteries: What is gravity?

The Newtonian idea of gravity was nice and simple, then Einstein turned things upside down, and even that isn't the end of the story

www.newscientist.com

We don't know. Again you are describing what happens, not explaining why it happens.

As Fort Fun knows, I happen to fundamentally disagree with his (and Einstein's.. along with practically the entire current scientific status quo's..) theory regarding this (what gravity is). However, I recognize his as both a scientific theory and one having a lot of consensus in support. That equals a measure of "We knowing" by scientific definition. Having a scientifically, unfalsifiable, repeatably testable theory.. is knowing something. Certainly more than can be said for any gods. The math, at least, works out . The logic and results otherwise are where I take issue and opt for, what seems to me at least, a far more satisfying overall explanation, effectively resulting in the same math. But I'm not going to devote the next ten years required to deprogram you or anyone else here trying to explain it all. Been there, tested that idea. Doing so just proved a waste of my time.

Suffice it to say, you or "newscientist.com" declaring something a "mystery" doesn't logically qualify it as such for everyone("We"). Have you even tried Googling "Theories explaining gravity" or the equivalent, for example? Try it. I think you'll find lots to chew on.. Don't just look at the first results..

Yeah, don't waste your time trying to "deprogram" me. You can't. It's impossible, because I have met G-d. I knew he exists, because he has directly answered prayers, in real direct ways.

He's as real to me as you are. In fact, more real in some ways, because I only know you as "Grumblenuts" which is nothing. You could be anywhere, doing anything. You could be a bot, or cutting and pasting this from some other person. Who knows. And same for me, right?

But G-d to me, has directly moved in my life. He is there. He hears my prayers. He doesn't always answer how I want, but he does answer.

So... yeah, you are not going to de-program me, or whatever. Not going to happen.

I love science. I read science articles for fun. My favorite topic of choice is nuclear physics. Now I'm no expert or something, but I enjoy science.

And sure I've read articles on "Theories explaining gravity" Sure. They explain very well the math of how gravity works. They explain what gravity does. They explain very well the mechanics involved.

"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."

Right?

But what science cannot answer is.... why? Why does this happen? We can calculate it. We can demonstrate it. We can document and describe it. But it still doesn't explain.... why?

Sure we have hypothesis. That's great. But, anyone can make a guess.

My only statement in this thread was, the OP said Science can explain everything. No... it can't. Science can do many many things, but it can't "explain everything".

Here's a thought. Use science in nature, to explain morality. You certainly don't see morality in nature. Nor does the science of the material world explain morality. So where did the idea that something can be morally right or morally wrong, if we're just animals from evolution?

I think we can use nature to explain morality. I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.

 

[Meriweather]

I can’t say I know what, if any, themes as presented in the Bible reflect an original author (with regard to the oft-named apostles). Original authors of the Bible are in question thus any original themes are in question. One seemingly obvious question to the gods would be “why did you put your message in a book written by largely unknown humans who corrupted some alleged holy message with errors and contradictions.”

The question I have of you (because I am curious) is who, exactly, are you giving a hard time...and why?

The very book that is off-putting to you notes that God's word is written on the hearts of mankind. An interesting thing about people is that they do want to bring forth that which dwells within. We bring it out into the open into the public realm to debate, discuss, and test.