Agnostics, Atheists, Brights, Free Thinkers

[Key]

2 minutes ago, mererdog said:

The apparent result is the same, but the actual result might differ. The distinction I make there is important because ignorance is not protective- what we don't know can hurt us. If a tiger is hiding, it will seem as if the tiger does not exist... right up until it pounces. 

 

Expressing openness to the possibility of a hidden God is fundamentally different than apologetics. In the first, a person is admitting ignorance of the truth. In the second, a person is attempting to prove that they know the truth, even if only that they know the truth is unknowable.

I think might be better stated as, "accepting the possibility of", rather than "attempting", perhaps? 

[Brother Kaman]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

I would love to know your reasons.

I would love to communicate those reasons, however, I am not articulate and I am way to old to care if I am fully understood on this subject. Even a good layman's understanding of physics (including quantum physics) should, at the very least, open the possibility to anyone. I am presenting my opinion based on my understanding of how the universe (defined as all that exists and all that has existed and all that will exist) works. That, of course, is a work in progress.

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Brother Kaman said:

Even a good layman's understanding of physics (including quantum physics) should, at the very least, open the possibility to anyone.

A good laymans understanding of quantum physics convinced me that either the scientists are full of **, or the universe is just not something I am equipped to understand. Branes hurt my brains.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

i dont know if god exists any more than you do. i tend to think not because i believe all things are knowable and nobody seems to know god.  but maybe hes just really good at hiding.

 

I have had some time to think about this.  Real things are knowable by objective means.  Imaginary things are not knowable by objective means.

 

   

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Key said:

Hmmm...that does sound a lot like Loki.

 

 

To my understanding -- that's all it is.  My understanding -- Loki personifies the Chaos of entropy.  His title is "mischief maker".  He spreads disorder.

 

The mighty Thor personifies a different type of chaos.  He is the chaos of storms and battle.

 

Their stories tell us how the different types of chaos work together.  In one story, Loki helps the Storm Giants steal Thor's Hammer.  In the next story, Loki helps Thor steal his Hammer back -- in a way that humiliates Thor in the process.

 

The old gods are complicated.  Much more so than they are generally understood.  

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

Objective knowing about G/god may or may not be possible now. That does not mean it will never be. I believe that ultimately science will prove that G/god cannot exist. I believe that physics has already proven that, though I think I am in a minority. At the same time, I have no idea what another person has learned about the existence or non existence of G/god. All I know about it one way or the other is what I have been told, either verbally or by written words of scholars religious or otherwise.

 

 

Feel free to correct me.  I thought that you were a Pantheist.  Very different from a Monotheist.  That means that your God is part of the Natural Order -- while the God of Monotheism is Supernatural.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

A good laymans understanding of quantum physics convinced me that either the scientists are full of **, or the universe is just not something I am equipped to understand. Branes hurt my brains.

 

 

The Universe is a layered mystery.  It does hurt my head.     

 

Still, fascinating.     

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

The apparent result is the same, but the actual result might differ. The distinction I make there is important because ignorance is not protective- what we don't know can hurt us. If a tiger is hiding, it will seem as if the tiger does not exist... right up until it pounces. 

 

Expressing openness to the possibility of a hidden God is fundamentally different than apologetics. In the first, a person is admitting ignorance of the truth. In the second, a person is attempting to prove that they know the truth, even if only that they know the truth is unknowable.

 

I think that there are enough real things to be afraid of, without inventing them.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Key said:

This may only highlight how much we still don't know, but may have some relevance to the discussion. 

I remember a Reader's Digest article that questioned the existence of God, or if prayer was indeed of any help. (Not sure which was the main topic of it.) Anyway, in it a doctor had done a series of brain scans on people to determine if anything happens while people pray compared to anything else. He seemed to find that there was an area of the brain that appeared to be active during the prayer moments but not any other time. And, always, it seemed to provide a sense of calm to the test subject. 

As he was a doctor of science, he concluded he couldn't accept that it was proof of God or anything divine, but also couldn't accept that there wasn't something unexplained happening that was perhaps outside the normal.

 

 

A real scientist is always ready to say, that he doesn't understand the results of an experiment.  This is how science advances.  Real scientists enjoy results that were not expected.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

Objective knowing about G/god may or may not be possible now. That does not mean it will never be. I believe that ultimately science will prove that G/god cannot exist. I believe that physics has already proven that, though I think I am in a minority. At the same time, I have no idea what another person has learned about the existence or non existence of G/god. All I know about it one way or the other is what I have been told, either verbally or by written words of scholars religious or otherwise.

 

If new information becomes available, I am ready to reevaluate.  In the meantime, I will draw my tentative conclusions, on the information which is available.  Not on the hypothetical information which might become available.  

 

[Brother Kaman]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Feel free to correct me.  I thought that you were a Pantheist.  Very different from a Monotheist.  That means that your God is part of the Natural Order -- while the God of Monotheism is Supernatural.  

Perhaps my god is the natural order. Perhaps my god is Howdy Dowdy and Clarabell the Clown is Patron Saint of All Forums. What does my god have to do with it?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

29 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

Perhaps my god is the natural order. Perhaps my god is Howdy Dowdy and Clarabell the Clown is Patron Saint of All Forums. What does my god have to do with it?

 

The Natural Order is real.  Nature is real.  The Universe is real.  Sky Daddy?  Not so much.  We are talking about what can be proven.  It makes a difference which god we are looking for.  The questions that we ask, matter to the answers that we find.  

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Brother Kaman]

 

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

The Natural Order is real.  Nature is real.  The Universe is real.  Sky Daddy?  Not so much.  We are talking about what can be proven.  It makes a difference which god we are looking for.  The questions that we ask, matter to the answers that we find.  

 

 

 

I am sorry, Jonathan H.B. Lobl. I did not know your agnosticism is G/god specific. It smacks of religious fundamentalism to tell me that because you do not know something, therefore I cannot know it either. You can only know what you know. You cannot know what another knows without being told. Hey kids, it's Howdy Dowdy Time!

Edited November 9, 2017 by Brother Kaman

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

 

I am sorry, Jonathan H.B. Lobl. I did not know your agnosticism is G/god specific. It smacks of religious fundamentalism to tell me that because you do not know something, therefore I cannot know it either. You can only know what you know. You cannot know what another knows without being told. Hey kids, it's Howdy Dowdy Time!

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

19 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

 

I am sorry, Jonathan H.B. Lobl. I did not know your agnosticism is G/god specific. It smacks of religious fundamentalism to tell me that because you do not know something, therefore I cannot know it either. You can only know what you know. You cannot know what another knows without being told. Hey kids, it's Howdy Dowdy Time!

 

 

I needed some time to consider a response.

 

Not all gods are equally improbable.  I am satisfied with the evidence,  that the Universe exists.  I am less satisfied with the evidence, for the existence of other gods.  

 

As for what you know, I have been paying attention these past years -- while you explained what you know, and how you know it.  Good reasoning for a Pantheist.  Not so much for a Monotheist.  

 

As for Howdy Dowdy Time -- by all means.  Let the good times roll.

 

[Brother Kaman]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I needed some time to consider a response.

 

Not all gods are equally improbable.  I am satisfied with the evidence,  that the Universe exists.  I am less satisfied with the evidence, for the existence of other gods.  

 

As for what you know, I have been paying attention these past years -- while you explained what you know, and how you know it.  Good reasoning for a Pantheist.  Not so much for a Monotheist.  

 

As for Howdy Dowdy Time -- by all means.  Let the good times roll.

 

Ok, you are pretty much A/athiest toward the Monotheist and A/agnostic about the rest. That is what I have learned over the years reading your posts.     Remember, it was Buffalo Bob Smith, pulling the strings.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Brother Kaman
Spelling

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

Ok, you are pretty much a thiest toward the Monotheist and Agnostic about the rest. That is what I have learned over the years reading your posts.     Remember, it was Buffalo Bob Smith, pulling the strings.

 

If your memory goes back far enough, I used to advocate for Pantheism on this board.  Things change.  At least, I do.

 

[Brother Kaman]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

If your memory goes back far enough, I used to advocate for Pantheism on this board.  Things change.  At least, I do.

 

That is a good thing to remember about all people.  Things change.

[Cornelius]

Atheists and Agnostics: All Agnostics are Atheists. Agnosticism is about what can be known. Atheism is about belief. Agnostics do not actively believe in nor worship any deities, therefore they are Atheists. Neither are mutually exclusive.

 

Brights: I actually have no knowledge of this label.

 

Free Thinkers: I've never understood how people can honestly state that a religious person can't be a "free thinker." It's a rather insulting premise imo.

 

Pantheists: Interesting concept and position but I don't see much activity from them.

 

Secularists: Another term that isn't mutually exclusive in regards to the religious. Although I often see it used that way. I think for pluralistic societies secularism is necessary.

 

Humanists, Secular Humanists, Spiritual Humanists: Humanists are humanists I guess. For every label more labels will arise.

 

Objectivists, , Apatheists,  Nones, No Preference, Etc: Do all these different labels have much in common besides what they are not, in contrast to what they are? 

Edited November 10, 2017 by Stormbringer

[mererdog]

8 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

That is a good thing to remember about all people.  Things change.

Another good thing to remember: Don't hold your breath. Things change, but not always on your schedule.

Edited November 10, 2017 by mererdog