Open Minded Agnostic Atheist

[Grumblenuts]

Wow, holy crap did I just find a great 12 page summary of everything Aether! For me it gets a bit disturbingly metaphysical toward the end, but I'm sure there's plenty for all to chew and enjoy.

 

[BreezeWood]

To its credit:
Flora

does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God.

Does not dress like a fool. Lives as though "he" does not exist.

The fools are not limited to those who openly state, “ There is no God”; they include those who profess belief in God but live as though he does not exist.

Then there's all of us who never say "There is no God" yet somehow manage to live fully and peacefully as though none exist. That fact has demonstrably bothered the piss out of most Bible thumpers from day one.. Oh well. Try not judging lest ye be judged. Trying doing unto others exactly as you would have them do unto you.

Flora

does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God.

Does not dress like a fool. Lives as though "he" does not exist.

.
from their perspective life would be irrefutable.

one might presume Flora enjoys a spiritual connection to the Everlasting from whence they came -

and the metaphysical forces responsible for their existence. and abide by the religion of antiquity to continue their progeny.

.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Open Minded Agnostic Atheist
⁜→ Meriweather, buttercup, Fort Fun Indiana,, et al,

The Abrahamic Religions, like most religions, commune with supernatural sources with some significant supernatural spirit content.

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

None. Spirit is a magical idea. No evidence for or against magic can be found, by definition.

(COMMENT)

I have to extend my apologies, in that this is a very late submission to your cited comment. But just when I was about to answer, another member of the discussion pointed something out that caused me to review my thoughts. One response, in particular, was made by our friend "Breezewood," Posting #1276 in which he asked a profound question about the association of perception, self-awareness, and sensation, with the nature of "physiology" (normal functions of living organisms). The stumbling block to my line of thought was, there is no way to test the actual visualization of thought. What is a thought or sensation? Of course, you cannot hold it in your hand and you cannot actually explain wherein the brain dies that visualization resides. So while the input, processing, and storage of any particular thought may be a product of some physiological apparatus, we don't actually have a way to capture from one brain and transfer it to another.

It is a reasonable assumption that "We live in a physical world." But we are resting that assumption largely upon a physiological process that we cannot explain.

Both the terms "God" and "spirit" are undefined. An external "spirit" content is not something that can be recorded and reexamined. There are many, many testimonials to the sighting of any number of apparitions and near-death experiences. We brush these off as mere tricks on the mind, illusions or active imaginations. But we don't know what they are in concrete terms.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Grumblenuts]

It is a reasonable assumption that "We live in a physical world."

No it isn't. Simply "assuming" a thing reasonable implies (possibly equally, even more reasonable) competing theories.

Like every appeal to religious belief ever, one simply presumes the conclusion because they've never seriously accepted the premise as "reasonable" to begin with. I sure don't know exactly how every signal is sent, received, or processed in living things, but we know one helluva lot more about it now than we did fifty years ago. Who knows how much we'll have figured out in another fifty years? I think one helluva lot x one helluva lot would be a reasonable estimate - given we don't largely kill ourselves off in the meantime.

Fact: We live in a physical world.
Fantasy: We live in a non-physical world.

If one rejects that (for our purposes) a scientifically empirical, unfalsifiable, consensus finding remains what meaningfully separates established "fact" from fiction, the "known" from all the wackiness proposed, then "God" help them.. to steer well clear of those like me.

 

[BreezeWood]

It is a reasonable assumption that "We live in a physical world."

No it isn't. Simply "assuming" a thing reasonable implies (possibly equally, even more reasonable) competing theories.

Like every appeal to religious belief ever, one simply presumes the conclusion because they've never seriously accepted the premise as "reasonable" to begin with. I sure don't know exactly how every signal is sent, received, or processed in living things, but we know one helluva lot more about it now than we did fifty years ago. Who knows how much we'll have figured out in another fifty years? I think one helluva lot x one helluva lot would be a reasonable estimate - given we don't largely kill ourselves off in the meantime.

Fact: We live in a physical world.
Fantasy: We live in a non-physical world.

If one rejects that (for our purposes) a scientifically empirical, unfalsifiable, consensus finding remains what meaningfully separates established "fact" from fiction, the "known" from all the wackiness proposed, then "God" help them.. to steer well clear of those like me.

Fact: We live in a physical world.
Fantasy: We live in a non-physical world.

If one rejects that (for our purposes) a scientifically empirical, unfalsifiable, consensus finding remains what meaningfully separates established "fact" from fiction, the "known" from all the wackiness proposed, then "God" help them.. to steer well clear of those like me.

.
well grumblenut ... there is a transition where there remains temporarily only the spiritual between two same physical beings ...

you might reconsider your previous disapproval of the captured image - all matters of evolution are verifiable in the present tense or it would not be a viable theory - from the land creature to the avian between the two only the spiritual above remains the same, transitions one to the other, is the guiding force and the cause of all evolutionary change.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah, sorry, that just sounds like happy talk to me. I happily disagree.

In insects, growth and metamorphosis are controlled by hormones synthesized by endocrine glands near the front of the body (anterior). Neurosecretory cells in an insect's brain secrete a hormone, the prothoracicotropic hormone (PTTH) that activates prothoracic glands, which secrete a second hormone, usually ecdysone (an ecdysteroid), that induces ecdysis.[4] PTTH also stimulates the corpora allata, a retrocerebral organ, to produce juvenile hormone, which prevents the development of adult characteristics during ecdysis. In holometabolous insects, molts between larval instars have a high level of juvenile hormone, the moult to the pupal stage has a low level of juvenile hormone, and the final, or imaginal, molt has no juvenile hormone present at all.[5] Experiments on firebugs have shown how juvenile hormone can affect the number of nymph instar stages in hemimetabolous insects.[6][7]

 

[BreezeWood]

Yeah, sorry, that just sounds like happy talk to me. I happily disagree.

In insects, growth and metamorphosis are controlled by hormones synthesized by endocrine glands near the front of the body (anterior). Neurosecretory cells in an insect's brain secrete a hormone, the prothoracicotropic hormone (PTTH) that activates prothoracic glands, which secrete a second hormone, usually ecdysone (an ecdysteroid), that induces ecdysis.[4] PTTH also stimulates the corpora allata, a retrocerebral organ, to produce juvenile hormone, which prevents the development of adult characteristics during ecdysis. In holometabolous insects, molts between larval instars have a high level of juvenile hormone, the moult to the pupal stage has a low level of juvenile hormone, and the final, or imaginal, molt has no juvenile hormone present at all.[5] Experiments on firebugs have shown how juvenile hormone can affect the number of nymph instar stages in hemimetabolous insects.[6][7]

Yeah, sorry, that just sounds like happy talk to me. I happily disagree.

.
nothing wrong w/ happy talk -

sorry as well - it is visible and verifiable evidence for a multitude of evolutionary processes - in real life. as well as the metaphysical forces that created life in the beginning on display.

 

[LittleNipper]

The earth's movements are consistent and follow a set course.

False. Earth's orbit has been and will be, several times throughout its history, perturbed by all manner on objects floating around and passing through the solar system.

Do you ever say ANYTHING about ANY scientific topic that is correct?

Hey, MR KNOW IT ALL! When was the last time you witnessed our planet floating aimlessly through space. Man, you are so "scientific"... Is anything you say of your own observation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Hey, MR KNOW IT ALL! When was the last time you witnessed our planet floating aimlessly through space

You idiot...that's not the only alternative to following "a set course", which our planet does not really do. I even spelled it out for you like you are 5 years old. So maybe address what i actually said.

 

[LittleNipper]

Hey, MR KNOW IT ALL! When was the last time you witnessed our planet floating aimlessly through space

You idiot...that's not the only alternative to following "a set course", which our planet does not really do. I even spelled it out for you like you are 5 years old. So maybe address what i actually said.

That seems to me to be the alternative GOD in HIS word was/is revealing. Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter ---- one season follows another as our earth travels with consistency around the Sun ---- year after year.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

one season follows another as our earth travels with consistency around the Sun ---- year after year.

So? We stopped having to turn to ridiculous superstition to explain that in about the 16th century. Catch up!