Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Hmmm. "Unproven personal Gnosis"......... It's a fun term.

Congratulations. I rejoice for you.

Just so. Most of us want to be kind. It's a strong impulse to be nice. To be gentle. Most of the time, this is a good thing. Sometimes, kindness is taken for weakness. Then we need something different.

Unless my memory survives physical death -- along with awareness -- some ephemeral essence continuing on -- doesn't seem to make any difference. At least, not to me.

We still need tact and civility. Rudeness tends to come off as disgusting. Sometimes, I need to be blunt.

I understand. Now and then, I remember the words of W. C. Fields. "Cease your equivocations! Declare yourself!" Of course, he was being ironic.

It took me a while to see the situation for what it is. Pretend for a moment that we -- you and I -- have wandered onto a children's playground. We have been confronted by a large boy. At first, you think he's an adult. You quickly discover that -- no. This is a large child. At that, not a very bright child. He tries to intimidate us. He insists that his invisible friend will take us to his invisible dungeon, where he will torture us forever and ever. We should be afraid of his invisible friend. We should be in terror. The silly child goes on. He has proof of everything. He has proof that his friend is real. He has proof that we should be afraid of his friend -- and if we are too stupid to see -- then we're just a couple of big doody head grownups. Of course, he talks big about his proof. Of course, there is no proof. Of course, he will insist that he has not insulted us. Only told us the truth. This boy is damaged. There is nothing to gain here. No reason to listen to his rants. I think we should do the adult thing and walk away. After we walk away, his tantrum will follow. He will say that he has won. I see nothing to be gained by sticking around here. My friend, I think we both need the company of adults. Shall we push on? Oh, if I get pushed out over this--feel free to use my e-mail. JonathanLobl at Yahoo dot com I'm also on Face Book.

There is more involved here, than positive or negative experience, with individual clergy. It would be hard to find a scientist, who thinks that another scientist is damned to eternal Hell Fire -- for working with the wrong theory.

The process leads to different results. When a scientist finds something -- or thinks that he might have found something -- the results go out for peer review and replication. The goal -- at least a major goal -- is to end up with objective, verifiable facts. Scientists are not shy about disproving each other's findings. Consider the situation with religion. I am deliberately not going to talk about Christianity or Bible studies. There are things that we can be less passionate -- and more neutral -- about. The example I would like to invoke is Daoist Tai Chi. There are Tai Chi masters who spend much of their lives in advanced study of "chi" -- the internal life force. Besides their studies of Tai Chi -- they also study traditional Chinese Medicine, with it's studies of the meridians and chakra system -- along with related studies. Western Science finds no foundation for any of these beliefs and or facts -- aside from agreeing that the stretching and balance aspects of Tai Chi are useful. It is a classic dispute between religious studies people, who are convinced that they are working with objective facts -- and other people who are convinced that the whole thing is speculative crap. I should pause and declare my own bias here. I am a Reiki practitioner who is taking Tai Chi classes. I'm inclined to believe that the "Chi" or "Ki" as it's called, is real. I am also aware that none of this rests upon a foundation of objective, verifiable fact. I'm saying this for a reason. I actually do understand belief without proof.

Scientists like to speak and write with caution. They know that future findings might modify or invalidate their life's work. This is not a sign of weakness on the part of science. Only coping with reality. Religious writers like to speak with absolute certitude. This is not a strength on the part of religion.

You're missing the point. Eight times six is not forty two. The Universe is deeply flawed. The reason that nothing ever seems to make sense, is that in truth -- nothing does make sense. Just a reminder. There are five books in the trilogy. Think about that.

And if you tell my wife that she's going to burn in Hell -- again, nobody will care. But it's still irritating.

I'm a gentleman. I have limited my response.

Nobody is curtailing Mieshec's freedom. He is free to come here and be as rude, irritating, annoying, arrogant, smug and condescending as he likes. We have the freedom to respond. He can preach all he likes. Respect is earned.

That sounds familiar. This is something that I can relate to.

When faith trumps science, there is small point in continuing. Facts are no longer the point of disagreement.

Yes.

Dan, what are you doing? Did I ever once claim to be inerrant? About anything? I'm not that far gone.

You said you have proof. You said that your proof would stand in a court of law. You said that your proof was ready now. You have not demonstrated your proof. That is the dishonest part. Your petty insults to me are not proof. They are rude without being instructive. Worse, we are now talking about your insults, than the subject matter at hand. The subject matter at hand is your evidence for God's existence. In this you have attempted to change the subject. Again, dishonesty on your part. Well? I'm waiting. You say you have proof? Objective evidence is what a court of law would demand. That is what you said. Evidence that would stand up in a court of law. Not some whining about seeing things through your eyes. Show me something. It was you who insisted that you had objective evidence for me. I'm calling your bluff. I think you have no evidence at all. You insist that you do have this evidence. Why am I still waiting? Regarding the substance of your insult. Yes. I understand nothingness. I am Agnostic. I do understand a lack of evidence. That is what you have given me. No evidence at all. You want me to provide you with something? What exactly do you expect me to provide? You are the one claiming to have objective evidence.. I am not claiming knowledge of God. That is what Agnostic means. You are claiming special knowledge. Provable knowledge. Evidence based knowledge. Objective knowledge. Ready to display knowledge. Still waiting.

This is not about my credentials. This is about your dishonest claim to having proof. This is your dishonest attempt to change the subject. You talk big. You produce nothing. You spin the truth like a top.

You're the one who said he had evidence. You're the one who said he had evidence now. Alright. I'm waiting. Cut the crap. Show me something. Your mouth has been writing some big checks. Cash them.

Fair enough. I think I'm done here.

Dark Matter is still being debated.

Who finds it necessary to say stuff like that? Besides people who write fiction and present no evidence. You just said that you're ready to show your evidence. You said right now. Well? What have you got?

Times beyond counting, I have been proven to be mistaken -- about a great many things. If I am mistaken now -- feel free to show me the evidence of my error. No evidence? Nothing? Then I will continue to disdain these outlandish assertions -- all made without evidence or plausibility -- and based on nothing more than the desire to believe.