Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Who are you directing this too? I don't recall anybody on this board rejecting recent election history.

Does it?

I never said that I was a good Atheist.

I have experienced similar things, though never quite so extreme. First there is amusement that I don't believe. Then astonishment. Then shock sets in. Sometimes, panic. It brings me small joy to be the source of a true believer's angst. Sometimes, it is enough.

What? If I had said that people turn to religion out of ignorance, you would have said I was being intolerant and insensitive. Possibly even rude. Did you just take that position? I was talking about ignorance. What do you mean? -- . And that why people turn to religion.

An addendum to my previous response: The ignorance of my past self, or my future self, or my present self, is not relevant. At no point in the apparent continuum does my ignorance change anything.

If that's what you're into -- Have you tried the First Church of Atheism? Go all the way with an Atheist ordination. Enjoy.

It is people that need protection. Not ideas. The places -- like Saudi Arabia -- that protect belief, use blasphemy laws to punish non-belief. In the market place of ideas; let the buyer beware.

It does small good to reference the eye; unless you say that it is the Ajna chakra.

That is the problem, isn't it? It is a complete, finished, unchanging work. We accept it or not, but it can not be changed. Argument is futile.

What Dan is giving you is standard Christian theology. It's no use arguing this point. Your argument is with standard Christian theology. It is what it is and it can not be changed or fixed. Arguing won't make anything right.

Today is also my future's past. My future self could be looking back and laughing at my illusions. I don't know. Neither do you. Every moment in future and past will seem like the present. Every moment is a present. When I was learning Reiki healing at a distance, I was taught that I was sending energy through space. In the course of my training, I discovered that this was not the case at all. I was over coming the illusion of space. If space is illusory, it follows that time is illusory. Or I might be lost in illusion. We have been through this. What exists outside of space/time? Singularity. Oneness. Unity. God. Pick your word.

We also know from Einstein that the flow of time -- if it can be said to flow -- is not uniform in it's passing; as originally thought. Time is relative, based on the position of the observer. Let us say that it is proven, for now, that time only moves from past to future. How do we know that the future does not already exist? I'm not arguing. I'm asking.

People in our past think that their future is not fixed. There may be a future past which has already happened -- but not yet. I said may. I won't pretend I understand the physics of time. Einstein has demonstrated that time is more complicated and subtle than we thought.

Do you mean God as personification? I think that YHVH has few followers, who know what a personification is.

If you want a personification of gravity, it should be easy enough. Start with a name. Maybe, Gravitas? Gravitas should be short and wide. Like a Dwarf from classic Norse mythology. That fits. The source of gravity is clearly under the ground, deep in the Dwarven caverns. Of course, Gravitas is of a lawful alignment, since gravity is ever present and consistent. There we have it. The foundation for a new mythology.

No entity at all. Temporal mechanics. If the future is as fixed as the past, there is no changing things. I don't know that this is the case. I don't know that this is not the case. When you insist on talking about "entity" or "control" -- you demonstrate that you don't know what I'm talking about.

It's something that a lot of religious people do. Ask any devout Christian. You will be told that religion is Man reaching up to God. Christianity is God saving Man. Ask any devout Muslim. You will be told that Islam is nothing more than submitting to the will of Allah. Ask any devout Jew. You will be told that Orthodox Judaism is nothing more than compliance with Torah. Buddhism is frequently describe as a practice, like meditation. No religion there. At least some Wiccans will say that all they do is venerate Nature. Me? I'm an ordained Agnostic Minister. I've gone in the opposite direction. I regard Agnosticism as a religious philosophy. You have a church with ordained ministers? It's a religion.

I'm sure that meredog will correct my perceptions of him. Be patient.

There used to be something called the Process Church of the Final Judgement. They had an interesting spiel: Christ said Love your enemies. Christ's enemy was Satan. Through love, Christ and Satan have come together. Christ to pronounce judgement and Satan to carry it out. I guess there really is "nothing new under Heaven." (Ecc.)

Are you tracing a chain of causality? Because I have observed you. That is what you do.

Your comments about the difference between a claim being unproven and being wrong.

You told me once that you were French. You must know about Descarte. "Cogito ergo sum." Sometimes, reason and logic look foolish. At least at first glance. You're not helping.

I want to believe that I have free will. My gut tells me that I have free will. My experiences tell me that I have free will. My senses tell me that I have free will. For all that, perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps I have not pierced the veil of illusion. Perhaps, I have heard the siren song of confirmation bias. I think that I have free will. Lingering doubt remains. Do you take this for weakness? Maybe you think that I can't make up my mind? No. I have been mistaken about other things. Perhaps I am mistaken, now. So says the Agnostic minister.

You have missed my point. I am not taking a stand on not having free will. I am examining the possibility of free will being illusory. Whether I have free will or the illusion of free will is not important. I conduct my life as though I have free will. This examination is in the tradition of Descarte. "I think, therefore I am." Someone else, who wanted to be clear about what he knew or only thought he knew. It never seems to occur to you that you might be mistaken about something. About anything.