Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Back to belief.

Thank you, Pete. Interesting developments.

I like it. Welcome to the Board.

The American Humanist Association. I feel foolish. How do I forget a name like that? 😜

The group I'm trying to think of, has Humanist in their name. The Spiritual Humanists started off as an online church. I think I have their ordination. The last time I looked, their site was on automatic pilot. I found a group on Facebook, which might possibly be descended from this "church". It was such inane, incoherent drivel that I never went back. I doubt even they knew what they were about. There was -- I think -- a Secular Humanist group that came out with a Secular Manifesto. The memories are dim. I don't know if they are still around. As a generic term, Humanists are just that. People who are concerned with Humanity, instead of the supernatural. One more word that gets misused and abused.

Aaron Ra discusses Creationism.

I can't at the moment recall their name. An interesting bunch. They provide lawyers for High School students. who don't want to stand for the Pledge. They are also working to get Humanist chaplains, for the American Military.

I'm less clear about what Humanism is. There are organizations behind it.

Yes. Agnostic is a good word to use. Sometimes, I still use it.

Yes. That is Agnosticism. That is also Apatheism. For me, the difference is attitude. Agnostics still care whether or not God exists -- and are still thinking about it. Apatheists think that even the question of God's existence, is meaningless. They don't care. There is also, Apathetic Agnosticism. "We don't know and we don't care." Similar to Apathetic Atheism. "We don't believe and we don't care." By all means, the grand combination. Apathetic Agnostic Atheism We don't know, we don't care and we don't believe." Because a God that neither helps -- nor hinders -- nor can be demonstrated to exist -- simply doesn't matter. Even if it actually exists, it still doesn't matter. We are now in the realm of -- "So what?" Let us be clear. It is God that doesn't matter. Religion still matters. A lot. Religion is real. Because the religious are real.

Actually, yes. It is important. There is nothing wrong with searching for the truth. That is the way of science. What the question is not -- is urgent. In my own life -- I'm much more clear about what I don't believe -- than what I do believe. Often, I find that this is enough. It starts with a few basic questions. What do I believe? What do I really believe? Not what I should believe. What do I actually believe? Why do I believe that? Do I have a good reason, to believe this is true? What is the evidence that this is true? A variant. What do I know? Why do I think that I know? Do I really know? If the answer is -- I don't know -- you're way ahead of the people who think they know -- when they don't know. In the end, there is no gaining the whole truth. On the other hand, it cuts out so much that is false. The Bible. The God of the Bible. The religions built upon both. In religious terms, it is piercing the veil of illusion. I think it counts for a lot. Truth and Reality are not up for a vote. Just because a lot of people believe something, does not make it true. Just because a set of beliefs is ancient, does not make any of it true. I do think it better to have no answer -- than an answer which is clearly false. That is the Agnostic Way. At least, my understanding of it. An additional thought. This accusation that the pious make -- that we are not open minded. That we are closed minded to their truth. It is good to be open minded. Not so open minded that the brain falls out.

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.