Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Did you catch his comments on Deism? That it's not relevant to daily life, so pointless. I think we can add Apatheism to his combination label. Anyway, he's right. Agnostic Atheist is a perfectly good label, if we are using more than one word. Popular usage is where the problem comes in. Richard Dawkins, came up with the "Dawkins Scale". The scale is from one to seven. One is absolute certitude that God exists. Seven is absolute certitude that God does not exist. Four gives equal weight to both possibilities. Dawkins, well known for his Atheism, places himself on that scale as 6.9. I think that this type of thing creates a lot of needless confusion. The damage is done. We have to live with it. Of course, there are other usages. Many from religious people. Some misuse words like Atheist and Agnostic, because they are truly incapable, of understanding the distinctions. Others misuse these words out of malice. Some of these people, are stupid, ignorant and vicious. People who don't believe -- or don't know -- also misuse these words. Again, the Dawkins scale. Most people who misuse these words are far less educated. Which brings us to political usage. When I'm answering a survey question, I go with Atheist. That's the wrong time for hair splitting subtlety. The pious need to know that we are here -- and having five or ten different words for saying -- We don't believe -- doesn't help anything. There are times when the religions of the world -- all of them -- need a resounding 4Q. Hmmm. Did I say that out loud? 😜

I went back and listened. The part that you're asking about starts at 7:07. The question that Rickey is asking about is -- Do you believe in God? This is an Atheist perspective. To this type of Atheist, the answer is a binary. It's either -- Yes. I believe -- Or it's -- No. I don't believe. Agnostic is a knowledge position. Different from belief. Do you know that God exists? This is why Rickey asks the question --. Am I wearing a red jump suit? The Agnostic position -- I don't know. -- is reasonable. Now he changes the question. Am I wearing a red jump suit, that created the Universe? In this manner, when he asks -- Do you believe in God? He is not asking what you know. He's asking what you believe. Part of the confusion might also be how we are defining God. Rickey is taking his definition -- I think -- as how Christianity, Islam and Hinduism define God. Those were the parts of the world he cited earlier. You are taking a more abstract, philosophic approach to defining God. I think that the God you have doubts about -- is not the same God -- that Rickey does not believe in. When I was new to this board, I advocated for Pantheism. I came to the conclusion, that this type of definition for God, was more trouble than it was worth. I decided to go with Atheism, for the simple reason that Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus had no idea at all what I was talking about -- and I got tired of explaining myself. I suspect you are creating the same problem for yourself with your own, personal understanding of God. I an not suggesting that you change your actual beliefs. I am suggesting that your use of the God word, is more trouble than it's worth. Of course, I have gone on to the Apatheism label. My actual beliefs have not changed. I got tired of arguing the distinctions, between Belief and Knowing. I don't care; is a lot less complicated.

Genesis is a projection of the culture -- and the individuals -- who created it. Along with influences from older cultures and surrounding cultures. A product of it's time and various converging cultures -- with political agenda.

It's even stranger, to consider that space itself is expanding. That the Universe is expanding. That the speed of the expansion is speeding up. That the more distant galaxies are in effect, moving away from us at faster than light speeds -- because of expanding space. It would have been impressive, if any of this had been in Genesis. 😜

Yes. Nothing is unstable.

Except that nothing is something -- and has mass.

That was interesting.

https://www.ulctribal.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/7-Spiritual-Forums

Do you remember, when Dan called himself a Free Thinker? That was hilarious. It's an old way of saying Atheist. It's not used much these days -- but that's how it was used. As in, free from religion. Yes. I left comments.

https://www.ulctribal.com/forum/forum.php

Yes. No matter how silly, it is what Dan believes. No power known to me, can change any belief held by Dan. It is not a simple matter of being stubborn. Dan believes it. It's part of why I don't want to argue with Dan any more. Since Dan is not correctable, on something so basic, as what we believe -- then further discussion is truly pointless.

I understand your point. You think that you can reason with anybody. Alas. You are mistaken. You can not reason with Dan. Dan is not capable of reason. Given a choice between Scripture -- and facts which can be demonstrated to be true -- Dan will go with Scripture. In addition, Dan is not capable of nuance. When any fact does not support his beliefs -- it's wrong or irrelevant. In addition, there is Dan's mission. He is not here for conversation. He is here to correct us. To take us from our error, to the truth of his Faith. Conversation is not possible with Dan, because he speaks for God. When Dan says that we believe in nothing, there is no point in arguing. That is what he believes that we believe -- and there is no arguing with Dan's beliefs. In like manner, when Dan makes his silly statements about science -- it is a reflection of Dan's beliefs about science. Again, there is no persuading Dan that his beliefs are mistaken. As to Scripture, Dan has already stated that not only has Scripture never been proven false -- any of it -- but that it can't be proven false. Any of it. Again, Dan's belief structure. Argue with Dan, about anything, if you must. Truly, it will do no good. His responses are predictable. You will recognize them. He will go on about how easy it is to get us upset. That we hate God. That we hate Scripture. That we hate religion. Of course, Dan's favorite comments -- how closed minded we are. Or -- we have no hope. Arguing with Dan is futile. Truly useless. I can't do it any more. I'm done.

"Our Father who art in Heaven....."

Yes. Of course, there is always a third option. I speak of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Remember, he boiled for our sins.

The Wrong Worship

When Church is Cool

Why we believe.

There used to be a ULC Minister's group. It died. The founder brought it back. I forgot about them. They could be back. There used to be a "Temple of Earth". Last time I looked, the site was on auto pilot. It's been a while since I looked at the Monastery. The last time I looked, the board was gone. I could go back and look. Even if it's there, do you want to work with them? Modesto HQ has nothing. They are still looking forward to the big convention -- in 2005. AintNoGod.com used to be fun. It shut down. If you like, I can root around and search. Atheist Agnostic Humanist Apatheist Secular I'm not optimistic, but I can give it a shot. There seems small point in Interfaith. You know what happens to them. There are Pagan groups. I wish them well, but I don't think they are a good outlet for us. Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Universal Ministries took down their board. They tried, several times. The Fundies kept taking over. They finally gave up. The Seven Planes is gone. The founder died and the church died with him. The Agnostic Church is gone. The founder couldn't take it any more. He retired. Please, not Redditt. Their reputation precedes them.

Tribal is an option. It's quiet, but maybe we can bring life to it. I was just there. I think we will have to pick a section to focus on. Please, not Facebook. Everything there turns to crap.

Yes, but not often. That board is slow. If you're interested, I can go more often.