Like
Haha
Sad
Hug
Wow
Hmmm
Grrr/Dislike
Send SmileNavigation
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@Omnedon By the way, I personally don't think it's wild speculation to think there may be (and probably are) civilizations in the universe much older and more advanced than our own, with much more intelligence and wisdom..
But it IS speculation.
So what?
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@Omnedon By the way, I personally don't think it's wild speculation to think there may be (and probably are) civilizations in the universe much older and more advanced than our own, with much more intelligence and wisdom..
But it IS speculation.
So what?
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
sterlingdean comments on Jan 3, 2020:
It's impossible to 'prove' non-existence. I'm of the opinion that several thousand years with no evidence of existence is close enough. I'm a straight up 7.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@TheMiddleWay You and I are absolutely on the same page,
sterlingdean comments on Jan 3, 2020:
It's impossible to 'prove' non-existence. I'm of the opinion that several thousand years with no evidence of existence is close enough. I'm a straight up 7.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
@TheMiddleWay You and I are absolutely on the same page,
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Purplefool comments on Jan 3, 2020:
Does he include spirituality in religious? I do not. On his spiritual scale I'd be a 2 but not with religion included.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
FYI: Atheists usually equate spirituality with religion.
Purplefool comments on Jan 3, 2020:
Does he include spirituality in religious? I do not. On his spiritual scale I'd be a 2 but not with religion included.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
FYI: Atheists usually equate spirituality with religion.
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
mordant comments on Jan 3, 2020:
His scale is fundamentally flawed in my view. Atheism at a level of 7 in his regime is not simply agnosticism purged of any belief. Atheism addresses one's belief claims, agnosticism one's knowledge claims. They influence each other but vary independently.
Since gods are non-falsifiable, I don't ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
Not to butt in--I don't want to start another atheist-agnostic war here--but there is, it seems to me, the technical definition of atheism, and the common definition.
When you say it's a 'lack of belief,' that is not what most people think of (including me, an Agnosticist).
Rather to us it's someone who proactively BELIEVES 'god'--by that they mean a supreme being, not a 'prime cause,' or a 'univeral, collective unconsciousness,' or whatever--though many if not all atheists dismiss that, too) does NOT exist.
That is, it is not a LACK of belief, but rather active hostility to the very notion ANY kind of god is real---no matter HOW you define the word, and DESPITE the fact there is no evidence it doesn't exist. I'm talking about DIS-belief to the point of absolute certainty.
You may say, 'no, that's not what atheism is,' but so then explain to me what all these '7s' mean.
And explain to me, then, what really IS the difference between the two?
After all, if you admit a lack of knowledge you are also admitting a lack of belief. There doesn't seem to be any difference, and to me, as an Agnosticist, there isn't.
So in my opinion the real difference is, an atheist claims it as a SURETY there is no god, period.
If there is doubt (which there HAS to be if one is rational) he or she is agnostic.
In other words (and I'll wrap this up because I know in my heart there is no end to this argument), the only possible distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is null and void UNLESS the very definition of 'atheist' is flawed, not Dawkins' scale.
In other words (Really, I'm just finishing up) the common understanding of what 'atheism' is SHOULD be the working definition, and atheist should stop pretending to only "lack belief," but admit they DO believe, in the NON-existence of god.
PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. 99.9999% is the same as 100%.
P.S.S. I'm a 7 supreme-being-wise, too. That's NOT what I'm talking about, just in case you risk confusing me with a troll.
mordant comments on Jan 3, 2020:
His scale is fundamentally flawed in my view. Atheism at a level of 7 in his regime is not simply agnosticism purged of any belief. Atheism addresses one's belief claims, agnosticism one's knowledge claims. They influence each other but vary independently.
Since gods are non-falsifiable, I don't ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
Not to butt in--I don't want to start another atheist-agnostic war here--but there is, it seems to me, the technical definition of atheism, and the common definition.
When you say it's a 'lack of belief,' that is not what most people think of (including me, an Agnosticist).
Rather to us it's someone who proactively BELIEVES 'god'--by that they mean a supreme being, not a 'prime cause,' or a 'univeral, collective unconsciousness,' or whatever--though many if not all atheists dismiss that, too) does NOT exist.
That is, it is not a LACK of belief, but rather active hostility to the very notion ANY kind of god is real---no matter HOW you define the word, and DESPITE the fact there is no evidence it doesn't exist. I'm talking about DIS-belief to the point of absolute certainty.
You may say, 'no, that's not what atheism is,' but so then explain to me what all these '7s' mean.
And explain to me, then, what really IS the difference between the two?
After all, if you admit a lack of knowledge you are also admitting a lack of belief. There doesn't seem to be any difference, and to me, as an Agnosticist, there isn't.
So in my opinion the real difference is, an atheist claims it as a SURETY there is no god, period.
If there is doubt (which there HAS to be if one is rational) he or she is agnostic.
In other words (and I'll wrap this up because I know in my heart there is no end to this argument), the only possible distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is null and void UNLESS the very definition of 'atheist' is flawed, not Dawkins' scale.
In other words (Really, I'm just finishing up) the common understanding of what 'atheism' is SHOULD be the working definition, and atheist should stop pretending to only "lack belief," but admit they DO believe, in the NON-existence of god.
PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong.
P.S. 99.9999% is the same as 100%.
P.S.S. I'm a 7 supreme-being-wise, too. That's NOT what I'm talking about, just in case you risk confusing me with a troll.
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Bilbobagins comments on Jan 4, 2020:
I’m a little surprised too. If one believes God or gods is a human construct then I wouldn’t think it hard to dismiss 100%. If as a scientist one holds that there could be a first cause for all that is then this doesn’t have to be God. That’s agnostic. So I thought that would be his ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
GOOD POINT
Bilbobagins comments on Jan 4, 2020:
I’m a little surprised too. If one believes God or gods is a human construct then I wouldn’t think it hard to dismiss 100%. If as a scientist one holds that there could be a first cause for all that is then this doesn’t have to be God. That’s agnostic. So I thought that would be his ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
GOOD POINT
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Dyl1983 comments on Jan 4, 2020:
With there not being any evidence of a god, there's no reason to believe in a god.
I'm a 7.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
There's no evidence there ISN'T a 'god' (explanation for existence and consciousness) either, which is why I'm an Agnosticist. Not a 'supreme being,' of course, but not 'nothing' and random chance either.
(Yes, we disagree, but that's one of the things which keep life interesting. In my opinion.)
Dyl1983 comments on Jan 4, 2020:
With there not being any evidence of a god, there's no reason to believe in a god.
I'm a 7.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 5, 2020:
There's no evidence there ISN'T a 'god' (explanation for existence and consciousness) either, which is why I'm an Agnosticist. Not a 'supreme being,' of course, but not 'nothing' and random chance either.
(Yes, we disagree, but that's one of the things which keep life interesting. In my opinion.)
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Omnedon I don't know if there's a god or not, and I'm not trying to stir anything up. I was addressing the Dawkins 'belief meter,' you responded, I responded to you, and so forth.
As far as a 'raging debate' goes, it's been going on long before I signed on...I'VE been trying for pinpoint exactly what may be the main issues, and I thought it could be a useful tool.
I've said all I want to say, to you, at this time. I think ANY belief system (or anti-belief system, which is the same thing in my opinion)can take on cult-like characteristics.
I consider Christianity (and most other theistic belief systems) nothing but monstrously huge cults; likewise atheism may be a cult to some people. I'll leave it at that.
If I offended you, sorry. I'm a free thinker and I like to float my ideas and learn from the give-and-take...
I'll continue to do so.
It looks like this topic HAS inspired a lot of discussion! I intend to read it all.
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Omnedon I don't know if there's a god or not, and I'm not trying to stir anything up. I was addressing the Dawkins 'belief meter,' you responded, I responded to you, and so forth.
As far as a 'raging debate' goes, it's been going on long before I signed on...I'VE been trying for pinpoint exactly what may be the main issues, and I thought it could be a useful tool.
I've said all I want to say, to you, at this time. I think ANY belief system (or anti-belief system, which is the same thing in my opinion)can take on cult-like characteristics.
I consider Christianity (and most other theistic belief systems) nothing but monstrously huge cults; likewise atheism may be a cult to some people. I'll leave it at that.
If I offended you, sorry. I'm a free thinker and I like to float my ideas and learn from the give-and-take...
I'll continue to do so.
It looks like this topic HAS inspired a lot of discussion! I intend to read it all.
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
LenHazell53 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
" I guess because science hasn't proven unequivocally that God does not exist."
What a stupid thing to say.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@LenHazell53 My dear, close friend, it IS true that science cannot prove god does not exist.
BUT science cannot prove god DOES exist, either.
I'm sure you didn't mean to imply all Agnostics are "New Age bullshitters," right? RIGHT?
I didn't think so, because otherwise I'd have to lump you together with all the other Atheists on here, who think just that: all New Age thinkers, to name one maligned group, are bullshitters. That there's only one way to deny the existence of Pink Unicorns and Purple Dragons...
Did you know most if not all New Agers are firmly in the no-Purple-Dragons camp?
It's true.
Help me out: to be 'okay,' should you have rejected not only the Abrahamic gods (and all other gods), and be left with NO beliefs whatsoever, or is it allowed to believe IN the right to think about the nature of existence AT ALL?
Or is the only acceptable attitude the whole thing is just one big colossal joke?
Just wondering.
Atheists aren't REALLY just a bunch of (figuratively speaking of course) old, depressed men telling the kids to stay off their lawn, are they?
I didn't think so.
LenHazell53 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
" I guess because science hasn't proven unequivocally that God does not exist."
What a stupid thing to say.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@LenHazell53 My dear, close friend, it IS true that science cannot prove god does not exist.
BUT science cannot prove god DOES exist, either.
I'm sure you didn't mean to imply all Agnostics are "New Age bullshitters," right? RIGHT?
I didn't think so, because otherwise I'd have to lump you together with all the other Atheists on here, who think just that: all New Age thinkers, to name one maligned group, are bullshitters. That there's only one way to deny the existence of Pink Unicorns and Purple Dragons...
Did you know most if not all New Agers are firmly in the no-Purple-Dragons camp?
It's true.
Help me out: to be 'okay,' should you have rejected not only the Abrahamic gods (and all other gods), and be left with NO beliefs whatsoever, or is it allowed to believe IN the right to think about the nature of existence AT ALL?
Or is the only acceptable attitude the whole thing is just one big colossal joke?
Just wondering.
Atheists aren't REALLY just a bunch of (figuratively speaking of course) old, depressed men telling the kids to stay off their lawn, are they?
I didn't think so.
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Omnedon 'They "generally" don't believe in God? But even there there is some variation ...'
Are YOU joking? There is "some variation?!?"
They really, really, REALLY don't believe in God, like 100%? Or just sorta, kinda, like 68%?
You.just.don't.get.it., do you? Most atheists don't. They can't hold two separate thoughts at the same time:
I don't believe in God. No evidence.
I don't disbelieve in god. No evidence.
See?
It's not that we don't have an OPINION.
No.
I'm a 'Neo-Deist.' I think there is a god, just not the Purple Dragon type.
I don't BELIEVE IN a god, because God, in my opinion, doesn't live in a floating fairy city. I don't know, maybe Mr. Graybeard DOES, but I'm '99.999% sure 'he' doesn't.
I'm SO practically positive, in fact, I'm an atheist when it comes to turquoise gnomes under the bridge
Put me on the scale!
I think, that is, SPECULATE about IT, though. I see god as maybe the unseen force which mass and energy have in common. IT is everything in other words (according to my ongoing, working definition).
IF it has consciousness, I theorize, it might have only gained it completely, to it's fullest extent, when human beings, and other like creatures here and/or elsewhere, developed a cerebral cortex.
BUT consciousness itself is everywhere,
Maybe elsewhere, other creatures have evolved further, and have IQs of 1800 or, heck, 18,000; why not? Seems plausible.
Maybe we have the intelligence of ants, compared to them, and our puny, pathetic, laughable ideas about "God" are on a par with what ants think about US!
Atheists like to scoff at the possibility of an afterlife, too, and reincarnation. 'Where is the evidence?!?' Actually there's quite a lot. Ummm, scientists have documented thousands and thousands of cases? Under circumstances (as in, circumstantial evidence) impossible to fake? There SEEMS to be very little doubt reincarnation is real; it SEEMS like only stubborn, obstinate dunderheads would just dismiss it all out of hand.
There's lots of things I wonder about. Ever watch the History Channel? It'll blow your mind.
So, I'll just speculate away, continue to not believe IN anything, and hope aliens land in my backyard, and take me to a planet--in another dimension, probably-- where they've figured all this out.
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 4, 2020:
@Omnedon 'They "generally" don't believe in God? But even there there is some variation ...'
Are YOU joking? There is "some variation?!?"
They really, really, REALLY don't believe in God, like 100%? Or just sorta, kinda, like 68%?
You.just.don't.get.it., do you? Most atheists don't. They can't hold two separate thoughts at the same time:
I don't believe in God. No evidence.
I don't disbelieve in god. No evidence.
See?
It's not that we don't have an OPINION.
No.
I'm a 'Neo-Deist.' I think there is a god, just not the Purple Dragon type.
I don't BELIEVE IN a god, because God, in my opinion, doesn't live in a floating fairy city. I don't know, maybe Mr. Graybeard DOES, but I'm '99.999% sure 'he' doesn't.
I'm SO practically positive, in fact, I'm an atheist when it comes to turquoise gnomes under the bridge
Put me on the scale!
I think, that is, SPECULATE about IT, though. I see god as maybe the unseen force which mass and energy have in common. IT is everything in other words (according to my ongoing, working definition).
IF it has consciousness, I theorize, it might have only gained it completely, to it's fullest extent, when human beings, and other like creatures here and/or elsewhere, developed a cerebral cortex.
BUT consciousness itself is everywhere,
Maybe elsewhere, other creatures have evolved further, and have IQs of 1800 or, heck, 18,000; why not? Seems plausible.
Maybe we have the intelligence of ants, compared to them, and our puny, pathetic, laughable ideas about "God" are on a par with what ants think about US!
Atheists like to scoff at the possibility of an afterlife, too, and reincarnation. 'Where is the evidence?!?' Actually there's quite a lot. Ummm, scientists have documented thousands and thousands of cases? Under circumstances (as in, circumstantial evidence) impossible to fake? There SEEMS to be very little doubt reincarnation is real; it SEEMS like only stubborn, obstinate dunderheads would just dismiss it all out of hand.
There's lots of things I wonder about. Ever watch the History Channel? It'll blow your mind.
So, I'll just speculate away, continue to not believe IN anything, and hope aliens land in my backyard, and take me to a planet--in another dimension, probably-- where they've figured all this out.
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@TheMiddleWay Yeah that occurred to me after I wrote it. I almost deleted it but I thought it might spark some discussion.
An agnostic, in the strictest sense, simply acknowledges the obvious: It doesn't MATTER what your opinion is on the subject!
An agnostic may fevently HOPE 'god' exists, but knows there is (as yet) NO WAY to know.
He (or she) may be convinced 'god' doesn't exist, but, again, knows his or her opinion is worth as much as used toilet paper.
So, to assign oneself a position on that scale measuring one's degree of belief, which an agnostic (theoretically anyway) lacks, just doesn't make sense.
Actually I'm more of a Neo-Deist.
I just think the typical atheist has god-entity-personal deity on the brain! No self-respecting atheist OR agnostic believes THAT!
But I do think about a 'god' by some other definition such as "collective unconscious" or e=mc√ or SOME scientific formula scientists could tap into to detect, and even 'prove' (!), its existence. Just a thought.
Speculating about that and other ideas is allowed Agnostics. Atheists treat ANY conjecture about the concept of 'god' anathema! Oh no! A closet believer!
I'm not worried about that. Who cares?
They do.
Like the theists, atheists are like a CULT. Toe the line, no heresies, no free thought, no god, no way! Disagree and you're out of the club.
Nice to hear from a fellow agnostic. Sometimes it feels a little lonely around here.
(P.S. I just rewrote it. Thanks.)
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@TheMiddleWay Yeah that occurred to me after I wrote it. I almost deleted it but I thought it might spark some discussion.
An agnostic, in the strictest sense, simply acknowledges the obvious: It doesn't MATTER what your opinion is on the subject!
An agnostic may fevently HOPE 'god' exists, but knows there is (as yet) NO WAY to know.
He (or she) may be convinced 'god' doesn't exist, but, again, knows his or her opinion is worth as much as used toilet paper.
So, to assign oneself a position on that scale measuring one's degree of belief, which an agnostic (theoretically anyway) lacks, just doesn't make sense.
Actually I'm more of a Neo-Deist.
I just think the typical atheist has god-entity-personal deity on the brain! No self-respecting atheist OR agnostic believes THAT!
But I do think about a 'god' by some other definition such as "collective unconscious" or e=mc√ or SOME scientific formula scientists could tap into to detect, and even 'prove' (!), its existence. Just a thought.
Speculating about that and other ideas is allowed Agnostics. Atheists treat ANY conjecture about the concept of 'god' anathema! Oh no! A closet believer!
I'm not worried about that. Who cares?
They do.
Like the theists, atheists are like a CULT. Toe the line, no heresies, no free thought, no god, no way! Disagree and you're out of the club.
Nice to hear from a fellow agnostic. Sometimes it feels a little lonely around here.
(P.S. I just rewrote it. Thanks.)
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@Omnedon A simmering debate?
A TITANIC struggle?
A friendly, ongoing chat?
A spot of tea on the veranda?
A TITANIC CLASH OF WILLS?
A whisper war in the kitchen?
Storm1752 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
This is a very useful scale, which points out the crucial difference between Atheists and Agnostics.
If 1 is pure theist, and 7 is pure atheist, then 3.5 would be 'pure' agnostic, right?
Wrong. Agnostics don't belong on a 'scale of belief,' because they neither believe nor disbelieve.
So...5.25 ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@Omnedon A simmering debate?
A TITANIC struggle?
A friendly, ongoing chat?
A spot of tea on the veranda?
A TITANIC CLASH OF WILLS?
A whisper war in the kitchen?
I was listening to One of Richard Dawkins books and it surprised me when he said that on his scale ...
LenHazell53 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
" I guess because science hasn't proven unequivocally that God does not exist."
What a stupid thing to say.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
But true...I guess that means some things can be stupid but true!
LenHazell53 comments on Jan 3, 2020:
" I guess because science hasn't proven unequivocally that God does not exist."
What a stupid thing to say.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
But true...I guess that means some things can be stupid but true!
Are you truely agnostic or an athiest in hiding?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I really AM agnostic.
Are YOU really atheist? No doubts?
If you have any doubts, you're agnostic, like many or most or ALL atheists.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@Omnedon You're right, I painting a broad brush, intending to get beyond the "artificial semantics" (what a word formally means and what it actually means), to pinpoint the heart of the debate between 'agnostics' and 'atheists.' And I see I'm getting nowhere!
Nothing can be known about 'god,' so there can be neither belief nor disbelief, okay?
One can parse and dissect and micro-analyze words until they become meaningless. I'm trying, as I said, to get to the essence of the disagreement: what are we really arguing about? I'm trying to say what I think it is, from my point of view
To rephrase and rejoin: I did not say I or anyone else BELIEVES IN 'god!' I SAID, 'believes in' the POSSIBILITY of, as you say, a 'principle' or "force" or "collective unconscious" or some other kind of scientifically verifiable, all-encompassing "thing" which explains existence and/or consciousness.
I'm NOT saying such a thing is real, just that it is possible.
For this proposed "thing" there by IS no hard proof, no irrefutable evidence, only strong circumstantial indications, such as case histories of reincarnations, remnants of apparently highly-advanced ancient civilizations, the 'readings' of Edgar Cayce (to name one well-documented psychic), and so and so forth. There is plenty to speculate about---not "believe in,' but enough to leave open the POSSIBILITY there are as-yet undiscovered and/or poorly understood physical laws which undergrid, permeate, and connect everything in the physical universe.
That MIGHT be no I he case, OR it MIGHT be a bunch of BS, too.
Who knows?
Atheists seem to want to almost masochistically dismiss the whole business as purple dragons and floating fairy cities.
Straw dogs.
I personally enjoy reading about (real) UFO sightings and (non-hoaxed) crop circles and other similar things. What's the harm?
But atheists say, "no way!" apparently without even looking into it themselves. There seems to be a deep-seated antipathy to anything out of the ordinary, mundane, and obvious, which cannot be readily explained, except as maybe--in some case--a severe reaction to a repressive upbringing, for instance. I don't know.
And now I'll drop out of this convo, if you don't mind, because if it's like other similar 'discussions,' it will not only not end in agreement, but rather escalate into increasingly heated and sharp exchanges of artillery, for which I lack the stamina.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I really AM agnostic.
Are YOU really atheist? No doubts?
If you have any doubts, you're agnostic, like many or most or ALL atheists.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 3, 2020:
@Omnedon You're right, I painting a broad brush, intending to get beyond the "artificial semantics" (what a word formally means and what it actually means), to pinpoint the heart of the debate between 'agnostics' and 'atheists.' And I see I'm getting nowhere!
Nothing can be known about 'god,' so there can be neither belief nor disbelief, okay?
One can parse and dissect and micro-analyze words until they become meaningless. I'm trying, as I said, to get to the essence of the disagreement: what are we really arguing about? I'm trying to say what I think it is, from my point of view
To rephrase and rejoin: I did not say I or anyone else BELIEVES IN 'god!' I SAID, 'believes in' the POSSIBILITY of, as you say, a 'principle' or "force" or "collective unconscious" or some other kind of scientifically verifiable, all-encompassing "thing" which explains existence and/or consciousness.
I'm NOT saying such a thing is real, just that it is possible.
For this proposed "thing" there by IS no hard proof, no irrefutable evidence, only strong circumstantial indications, such as case histories of reincarnations, remnants of apparently highly-advanced ancient civilizations, the 'readings' of Edgar Cayce (to name one well-documented psychic), and so and so forth. There is plenty to speculate about---not "believe in,' but enough to leave open the POSSIBILITY there are as-yet undiscovered and/or poorly understood physical laws which undergrid, permeate, and connect everything in the physical universe.
That MIGHT be no I he case, OR it MIGHT be a bunch of BS, too.
Who knows?
Atheists seem to want to almost masochistically dismiss the whole business as purple dragons and floating fairy cities.
Straw dogs.
I personally enjoy reading about (real) UFO sightings and (non-hoaxed) crop circles and other similar things. What's the harm?
But atheists say, "no way!" apparently without even looking into it themselves. There seems to be a deep-seated antipathy to anything out of the ordinary, mundane, and obvious, which cannot be readily explained, except as maybe--in some case--a severe reaction to a repressive upbringing, for instance. I don't know.
And now I'll drop out of this convo, if you don't mind, because if it's like other similar 'discussions,' it will not only not end in agreement, but rather escalate into increasingly heated and sharp exchanges of artillery, for which I lack the stamina.
Are you truely agnostic or an athiest in hiding?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I really AM agnostic.
Are YOU really atheist? No doubts?
If you have any doubts, you're agnostic, like many or most or ALL atheists.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 2, 2020:
@Omnedon Yes, because Agnostics DO believe in the POSSIBILITY of some kind of 'god' not at ALL like the personal-entity-type god we all enjoy bashing so much.
And that's where both the misunderstanding AND the brick wall is located.
Why? How?
Atheists have a problem with uncertainty, nuance, and a squishy, jelly-like, changeable, indeterminate idea of 'god.'
They might say,
"Well if you're not talking about a personal deity-type god, why even call it god? Call it something else (which we'll probably also deny exists because you don't even know yourself what it is exactly you are talking about.)"
To which an atheist might respond,
"Yes, well, that's the best I can do, because no evidence is apparent, or may ever be discovered (in this three-dimensional world) for the explanations so many of us seek.
"We don't even know where to look, except maybe at the physical world of matter and energy, which we've already said may provide SOME clues but certainly nothing definitive."
In other words, to circle back around, Agnostics are still questing for answers, or at least clues, knowing full well they may not exist because maybe there IS no 'god,' no matter what you mean by the word.
Atheists, on the other hand...(well, whatever I say is going to start yet another endless circle j**k!).
Let's just say Agnostics will always be " on the fence" because they think it's the only rational place to be until, if, or when, the scientists say,
"No more! We give up! Nothing left to investigate! We've gone as far be as is humanly possible!.
You and I both know that day will never come.
But yes, there ARE differences between agnostics and atheists, but they are mostly artificial semantics.
However, remember I said, 'mostly;' as in, 'most' crop circles are hoaxes, or 'most' things about the pyramids can be explained, or 'most' psychics are phonies, etc.
It's all very confusing...that's the point.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I really AM agnostic.
Are YOU really atheist? No doubts?
If you have any doubts, you're agnostic, like many or most or ALL atheists.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 2, 2020:
@Omnedon Yes, because Agnostics DO believe in the POSSIBILITY of some kind of 'god' not at ALL like the personal-entity-type god we all enjoy bashing so much.
And that's where both the misunderstanding AND the brick wall is located.
Why? How?
Atheists have a problem with uncertainty, nuance, and a squishy, jelly-like, changeable, indeterminate idea of 'god.'
They might say,
"Well if you're not talking about a personal deity-type god, why even call it god? Call it something else (which we'll probably also deny exists because you don't even know yourself what it is exactly you are talking about.)"
To which an atheist might respond,
"Yes, well, that's the best I can do, because no evidence is apparent, or may ever be discovered (in this three-dimensional world) for the explanations so many of us seek.
"We don't even know where to look, except maybe at the physical world of matter and energy, which we've already said may provide SOME clues but certainly nothing definitive."
In other words, to circle back around, Agnostics are still questing for answers, or at least clues, knowing full well they may not exist because maybe there IS no 'god,' no matter what you mean by the word.
Atheists, on the other hand...(well, whatever I say is going to start yet another endless circle j**k!).
Let's just say Agnostics will always be " on the fence" because they think it's the only rational place to be until, if, or when, the scientists say,
"No more! We give up! Nothing left to investigate! We've gone as far be as is humanly possible!.
You and I both know that day will never come.
But yes, there ARE differences between agnostics and atheists, but they are mostly artificial semantics.
However, remember I said, 'mostly;' as in, 'most' crop circles are hoaxes, or 'most' things about the pyramids can be explained, or 'most' psychics are phonies, etc.
It's all very confusing...that's the point.
Well, I don't know why the posts about the Telegraph article [telegraph.
Storm1752 comments on Jan 1, 2020:
What is so fascinating? It's obvious:
Smaller societies went to war over religion AND economics, power, culture, race, etc., just as they do today.
The WINNERS absorbed the losers into their (now larger) society and thus expanded, but it wasn't JUST religion which caused conflict in the first ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
@skado That's funny, isn't it? 90% of your content was about whether or not religion caused cohesion or disintegration, but you were talking about process.
Well, be that as it may, I stand by my observations....and I wonder why you went into such minute detail to make such a minor and mundane point.
Why, something similar keeps happening to me! The other day, I wanted to find out what morbid things they discovered when they drained the American side of Niagra Falls, so I leafed through about 20 'clicks' to find out they found...not much, just the remains of two people who'd jumped/fell in over the years.
Of course, the GOAL was to keep me clicking past all those ads, hoping something would suck me in!
Who knew?
I think it's probably just the beginning.
Not to be negative, but it'll get worse.
Now we're all hooked on these things, we're at their mercy. Wow, all we need now is eerie music!
It's...it's...a nightmare!😮
Storm1752 comments on Jan 1, 2020:
What is so fascinating? It's obvious:
Smaller societies went to war over religion AND economics, power, culture, race, etc., just as they do today.
The WINNERS absorbed the losers into their (now larger) society and thus expanded, but it wasn't JUST religion which caused conflict in the first ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
@skado That's funny, isn't it? 90% of your content was about whether or not religion caused cohesion or disintegration, but you were talking about process.
Well, be that as it may, I stand by my observations....and I wonder why you went into such minute detail to make such a minor and mundane point.
Why, something similar keeps happening to me! The other day, I wanted to find out what morbid things they discovered when they drained the American side of Niagra Falls, so I leafed through about 20 'clicks' to find out they found...not much, just the remains of two people who'd jumped/fell in over the years.
Of course, the GOAL was to keep me clicking past all those ads, hoping something would suck me in!
Who knew?
I think it's probably just the beginning.
Not to be negative, but it'll get worse.
Now we're all hooked on these things, we're at their mercy. Wow, all we need now is eerie music!
It's...it's...a nightmare!😮
lately I'm beginning to think they should change an IQ test from measuring how intelligent someone ...
Shawno1972 comments on Dec 30, 2019:
A measuring of one's intelligence enables a particularly egregious form of judgment. Good people don't bother with such things.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
@Shawno1972 I don't know...intelligence (wedded to common sense) seems a good place to start.
It's funny how the people with the "best hearts and spirits" are also the most successful (intelligence plus luck?).
With success comes preferential treatment, which leads to a very positive attitude toward one's fellow men.
With failure comes ILL treatment, which leads to a decidedly negative attitude toward mankind.
Attitudes can shape behavior, and so the cycle reinforces itself, sets courses in life...one toward 'sainthood,' the other to demonic possession!
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Shawno1972 comments on Dec 30, 2019:
A measuring of one's intelligence enables a particularly egregious form of judgment. Good people don't bother with such things.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
@Shawno1972 I don't know...intelligence (wedded to common sense) seems a good place to start.
It's funny how the people with the "best hearts and spirits" are also the most successful (intelligence plus luck?).
With success comes preferential treatment, which leads to a very positive attitude toward one's fellow men.
With failure comes ILL treatment, which leads to a decidedly negative attitude toward mankind.
Attitudes can shape behavior, and so the cycle reinforces itself, sets courses in life...one toward 'sainthood,' the other to demonic possession!
Figuratively speaking, of course.
Are you truely agnostic or an athiest in hiding?
Joanne comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I am truly an agnostic and an atheist.
I am an unabashed atheist because I absolutely do not believe there is any kind of a god, anywhere, in any possible universe, in any dimension.
But, I am also agnostic because I accept that I cannot "know" that no such being exists. I can only say that ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
To state the obvious, you are contradicting yourself. If you ABSOLUTELY do not believe, then you KNOW god doesn't exist..
If you do not KNOW, then you cannot absolutely BELIEVE.
And WHAT is it you 'believe in' or 'disbelieve in?'
A 'being?' Who says 'god' has to be a BEING, an entity? It's you ATHEISTS who keep saying that, and refuse to stop.
BUT you only set up your own straw dog and then knock it down.
If you just will LISTEN to what real Agnostics are saying, you will finally understand you are NOT agnostic.
Either that, or you will finally admit you are agnostic, and there are no such thing as 'atheists.' You cannot have it both ways.
(I KNOW you disagree.)
Joanne comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I am truly an agnostic and an atheist.
I am an unabashed atheist because I absolutely do not believe there is any kind of a god, anywhere, in any possible universe, in any dimension.
But, I am also agnostic because I accept that I cannot "know" that no such being exists. I can only say that ...
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
To state the obvious, you are contradicting yourself. If you ABSOLUTELY do not believe, then you KNOW god doesn't exist..
If you do not KNOW, then you cannot absolutely BELIEVE.
And WHAT is it you 'believe in' or 'disbelieve in?'
A 'being?' Who says 'god' has to be a BEING, an entity? It's you ATHEISTS who keep saying that, and refuse to stop.
BUT you only set up your own straw dog and then knock it down.
If you just will LISTEN to what real Agnostics are saying, you will finally understand you are NOT agnostic.
Either that, or you will finally admit you are agnostic, and there are no such thing as 'atheists.' You cannot have it both ways.
(I KNOW you disagree.)
Even though I am an atheist, I recognize that we have had great theologians, whose thoughts are ...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I DO respect the current pope, never heard of the other gentleman.
On the other hand I'm not going to read his writings or listen to his speeches or take his theological beliefs to heart.
Therefore my interest is minimal.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
@SilentRage I'm sorry? Your question again, please?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 28, 2019:
I DO respect the current pope, never heard of the other gentleman.
On the other hand I'm not going to read his writings or listen to his speeches or take his theological beliefs to heart.
Therefore my interest is minimal.
Storm1752 replies on Jan 1, 2020:
@SilentRage I'm sorry? Your question again, please?
Are you truely agnostic or an athiest in hiding?
ToakReon comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I'm both atheist AND agnostic. They are different terms for different concepts - 'atheist' means you do not believe in GOD, 'agnostic' means you don't believe the matter can be PROVEN.
Analogy:
Do I believe there is a flourescent, pink fairy called Gwendolyne who lives at the bottom of my ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
Talk about tired, worn cliches! Purple dragons! Pink fairies in the garden!
I'm gonna start having nightmares about chartreuse trolls under my bed!
ToakReon comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I'm both atheist AND agnostic. They are different terms for different concepts - 'atheist' means you do not believe in GOD, 'agnostic' means you don't believe the matter can be PROVEN.
Analogy:
Do I believe there is a flourescent, pink fairy called Gwendolyne who lives at the bottom of my ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
Talk about tired, worn cliches! Purple dragons! Pink fairies in the garden!
I'm gonna start having nightmares about chartreuse trolls under my bed!
Are you truely agnostic or an athiest in hiding?
wordywalt comments on Dec 31, 2019:
And we, as a species and as a biological organism, will most likely never know more than an infinitesimal fraction of that before the planet and all of its living inhabitants are wiped out by some cataclysmic event Still, we have the drive to understand. What does that have to do with ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
The 'drive to understand...'
I like it.
(Maybe that IS spirituality in a nutshell )
wordywalt comments on Dec 31, 2019:
And we, as a species and as a biological organism, will most likely never know more than an infinitesimal fraction of that before the planet and all of its living inhabitants are wiped out by some cataclysmic event Still, we have the drive to understand. What does that have to do with ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
The 'drive to understand...'
I like it.
(Maybe that IS spirituality in a nutshell )
Are you truely agnostic or an athiest in hiding?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I really AM agnostic.
Are YOU really atheist? No doubts?
If you have any doubts, you're agnostic, like many or most or ALL atheists.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
@Omnedon See, now THAT'S where we disagree and/or where it comes down to a basic misunderstanding!
The questioner says Agnostics are "atheists in hiding." (!) Does this betray a lack of understanding what an agnostic IS compared to what an atheist IS?
Many Atheists say they 'do not know' and still are atheists.
Agnostics also say they 'do not know.'
Help me out here, and I'm being sincere: if both 'don't know,' what's the difference between the two? Both don't 'believe in' the existence of god, right?
So far so good.
Now, do both 'believe in' the NON-existence of god?
No.
Atheists DO 'believe in' it.
Agnostics DON'T 'believe in' that EITHER...in fact, they don't 'believe' the entire subject is discussable because it's just one of those mysteries for which there is no correct answer!
I'll speak strictly for myself, okay? This may partially clear this up for some:
As one KIND of agnostic, I prefer an alternative definition of 'god' NOTHING LIKE the one everybody likes to bash, including me.
What's MY definition?
I don't have one.
It's unknowable, see? If science ever figures it out, I reason, then I finally WILL know.
So I 'believe in' the POSSIBILITY of a 'mystery god,' without portfolio.
I'll keep searching for THAT god! Why? I get bored...some article catches my eye...somebody sees a spaceship. Or something.
Atheists, on the other hand, have closed the book. Move along...nothing to see here, folks!
It's all purple dragons in the garage!
For me, THAT's the difference.
What do you think about what I think?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I really AM agnostic.
Are YOU really atheist? No doubts?
If you have any doubts, you're agnostic, like many or most or ALL atheists.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
@Omnedon See, now THAT'S where we disagree and/or where it comes down to a basic misunderstanding!
The questioner says Agnostics are "atheists in hiding." (!) Does this betray a lack of understanding what an agnostic IS compared to what an atheist IS?
Many Atheists say they 'do not know' and still are atheists.
Agnostics also say they 'do not know.'
Help me out here, and I'm being sincere: if both 'don't know,' what's the difference between the two? Both don't 'believe in' the existence of god, right?
So far so good.
Now, do both 'believe in' the NON-existence of god?
No.
Atheists DO 'believe in' it.
Agnostics DON'T 'believe in' that EITHER...in fact, they don't 'believe' the entire subject is discussable because it's just one of those mysteries for which there is no correct answer!
I'll speak strictly for myself, okay? This may partially clear this up for some:
As one KIND of agnostic, I prefer an alternative definition of 'god' NOTHING LIKE the one everybody likes to bash, including me.
What's MY definition?
I don't have one.
It's unknowable, see? If science ever figures it out, I reason, then I finally WILL know.
So I 'believe in' the POSSIBILITY of a 'mystery god,' without portfolio.
I'll keep searching for THAT god! Why? I get bored...some article catches my eye...somebody sees a spaceship. Or something.
Atheists, on the other hand, have closed the book. Move along...nothing to see here, folks!
It's all purple dragons in the garage!
For me, THAT's the difference.
What do you think about what I think?
Who has noticed in the last day or so there has been a resurgence of Islam bashing.
Fernapple comments on Dec 31, 2019:
There is a little yes, but Islam is, or should be, as open to bashing as all the rest of the Abrahamic rubbish, for those who like bashing, though I am not fond of it myself. There are however two questions which have to be addressed, which are, is Islam a more threatening and intolerant religion ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
I think "bashing" in this case is slang for "sharp criticism due to extreme merit."
Islam is the MOST intolerant, so tolerance in response might be a "Christian" response (turn the other cheek) but NOT a proportionate response.
In other words, I see no need to act or speak rationally about a group of irrational, brainwashed maniacs who deny my right to act or speak critically AT ALL.
You will note the use of heated rhetoric, or, if you will, "bashing."
The question is, is it proportionate; is the use of angry, heated verbiage appropriate? Accurate?
Understandable?
I've spent a lot of time researching and trying to understand Islam, and the more I did so the more alarmed I became.
(I'm already alarmed by radical Christians, but that's another subject.)
I doubt most of the bashing done here comes from an ill-informed, prejudiced, racist, nationalistic, Trumpist point of view.
It comes instead, I think, from a verifiable realization these people are even more OUR implacable foes than anyone else's...! In their eyes Atheists and Agnostics (satanic) are much worse than Christians and Jews (misguided but god-fearing)!
So I'll just bash away if you don't mind, okay?
Thanks
Fernapple comments on Dec 31, 2019:
There is a little yes, but Islam is, or should be, as open to bashing as all the rest of the Abrahamic rubbish, for those who like bashing, though I am not fond of it myself. There are however two questions which have to be addressed, which are, is Islam a more threatening and intolerant religion ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
I think "bashing" in this case is slang for "sharp criticism due to extreme merit."
Islam is the MOST intolerant, so tolerance in response might be a "Christian" response (turn the other cheek) but NOT a proportionate response.
In other words, I see no need to act or speak rationally about a group of irrational, brainwashed maniacs who deny my right to act or speak critically AT ALL.
You will note the use of heated rhetoric, or, if you will, "bashing."
The question is, is it proportionate; is the use of angry, heated verbiage appropriate? Accurate?
Understandable?
I've spent a lot of time researching and trying to understand Islam, and the more I did so the more alarmed I became.
(I'm already alarmed by radical Christians, but that's another subject.)
I doubt most of the bashing done here comes from an ill-informed, prejudiced, racist, nationalistic, Trumpist point of view.
It comes instead, I think, from a verifiable realization these people are even more OUR implacable foes than anyone else's...! In their eyes Atheists and Agnostics (satanic) are much worse than Christians and Jews (misguided but god-fearing)!
So I'll just bash away if you don't mind, okay?
Thanks
Who has noticed in the last day or so there has been a resurgence of Islam bashing.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I haven’t noticed.
There is a continuous bashing of “Evangelicals” here and in the media in general.
If possible I think it is better to understand and respect people rather than bash them.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
@WilliamFleming Sorry but that makes no sense. How is voting for Hillary voting for an Evangelical???
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 31, 2019:
I haven’t noticed.
There is a continuous bashing of “Evangelicals” here and in the media in general.
If possible I think it is better to understand and respect people rather than bash them.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
@WilliamFleming Sorry but that makes no sense. How is voting for Hillary voting for an Evangelical???
Who has noticed in the last day or so there has been a resurgence of Islam bashing.
DenoPenno comments on Dec 31, 2019:
This is because Trump blames Iran for what is happening in Iraq at our embassy. Rather than an increase of Islam bashing it appears to me as a resurgence.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
@Trumpeter Just throw 'em all in the same pile, throw gas on 'em and watch 'em burn, eh?
I'd like to think of myself as SLIGHTLY more discriminating...
DenoPenno comments on Dec 31, 2019:
This is because Trump blames Iran for what is happening in Iraq at our embassy. Rather than an increase of Islam bashing it appears to me as a resurgence.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 31, 2019:
@Trumpeter Just throw 'em all in the same pile, throw gas on 'em and watch 'em burn, eh?
I'd like to think of myself as SLIGHTLY more discriminating...
Contrary to popular opinion, Venezuela didn't go broke because of "socialism".
[youtu.be]
callmedubious comments on Dec 29, 2019:
I noticed that the commentator didnt mention the punishing sanctions enforced by the US govt that certainly sped up the process.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@Trajan61 You should open your mind...sounds like it could use a good airing out.
"Socialism" can mean anything, depending on its context.
Venezuela turned into a single-party Stalinist authoritarian dictatorship. THAT was and is their problem.
Norway is a democracy which combines the best of socialism and capitalism. They are constantly refining and correcting their policies, and embrace debate.
Please reconsider your position.
callmedubious comments on Dec 29, 2019:
I noticed that the commentator didnt mention the punishing sanctions enforced by the US govt that certainly sped up the process.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@Trajan61 You should open your mind...sounds like it could use a good airing out.
"Socialism" can mean anything, depending on its context.
Venezuela turned into a single-party Stalinist authoritarian dictatorship. THAT was and is their problem.
Norway is a democracy which combines the best of socialism and capitalism. They are constantly refining and correcting their policies, and embrace debate.
Please reconsider your position.
Contrary to popular opinion, Venezuela didn't go broke because of "socialism".
[youtu.be]
Trajan61 comments on Dec 30, 2019:
If you believe socialism didn’t put them in the poor house you need to study your history. There’s not one good example of a socialist country who is prosperous. Anytime you have an economy that is run by the government you are going to have a lot of poor people.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@Trajan61 CAPTIONED!
Trajan61 comments on Dec 30, 2019:
If you believe socialism didn’t put them in the poor house you need to study your history. There’s not one good example of a socialist country who is prosperous. Anytime you have an economy that is run by the government you are going to have a lot of poor people.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@Trajan61 CAPTIONED!
Why do Christians get threatened and terrified by Atheists?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 29, 2019:
Not to defend them, but they think atheists (and Agnostics, and Hindus, etc.) lead souls to Satan and Hell.
Hey, jus' sayin'...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@vjohnson51 That's just it: you're saying they are being defensive and feel threatened by the 'truth;' but is it possible you're misinterpreting their reactions? That they are sincerely horrified by what they consider a demonic presence embodied by said agnostic/atheist?
It seems to me no amount of sane/logical fact would or could penetrate their brainwashed insights..
It might seem obvious to US they are deluded fools, but THEY are convinced God has granted them divine wisdom.
No contest.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 29, 2019:
Not to defend them, but they think atheists (and Agnostics, and Hindus, etc.) lead souls to Satan and Hell.
Hey, jus' sayin'...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@vjohnson51 That's just it: you're saying they are being defensive and feel threatened by the 'truth;' but is it possible you're misinterpreting their reactions? That they are sincerely horrified by what they consider a demonic presence embodied by said agnostic/atheist?
It seems to me no amount of sane/logical fact would or could penetrate their brainwashed insights..
It might seem obvious to US they are deluded fools, but THEY are convinced God has granted them divine wisdom.
No contest.
What am I saying?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 29, 2019:
Are you Japanese or something?
What do you mean you "lack saying 'that is true?'"
Do you mean you CAN'T say something is true, or not, because you simply don't know, because the necessary information is unavailable?
Then you are agnostic. Lots of people are.
Your ability to communicate in ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@Word You're playing mind games, not for a second seriously suggesting the reader should be expected to decipher what are in essence simple and simplistic notions. You're being deliberately obtuse. Do you know what 'obtuse' means? Slow and unintelligent.
Not that you ARE dull-witted; just that you pretend to be as a form of mockery.
I'm only responding to your nonsensical response to me, because I resent your insensitivity...we are serious (usually) and are sincerely trying to explore each other's ideas and points of view. YOU seem to think this all a big joke. Well, I hope you're enjoying yourself; I won't be replying to any further to your childishness.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 29, 2019:
Are you Japanese or something?
What do you mean you "lack saying 'that is true?'"
Do you mean you CAN'T say something is true, or not, because you simply don't know, because the necessary information is unavailable?
Then you are agnostic. Lots of people are.
Your ability to communicate in ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 30, 2019:
@Word You're playing mind games, not for a second seriously suggesting the reader should be expected to decipher what are in essence simple and simplistic notions. You're being deliberately obtuse. Do you know what 'obtuse' means? Slow and unintelligent.
Not that you ARE dull-witted; just that you pretend to be as a form of mockery.
I'm only responding to your nonsensical response to me, because I resent your insensitivity...we are serious (usually) and are sincerely trying to explore each other's ideas and points of view. YOU seem to think this all a big joke. Well, I hope you're enjoying yourself; I won't be replying to any further to your childishness.
What am I saying?
Mofo1953 comments on Dec 29, 2019:
You lack saying? What do you mean by that?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@Word No I think atheists have become Agnostics without even realizing it
Mofo1953 comments on Dec 29, 2019:
You lack saying? What do you mean by that?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 29, 2019:
@Word No I think atheists have become Agnostics without even realizing it
Good morning 🌞
It's pose your question day!
bleurowz comments on Dec 29, 2019:
Saw this on Facebook today and thought it would be perfect to post here.
What word would you leave?
Use your Agnostic/Humanist member name!
My answer would be: benevolence
Storm1752 replies on Dec 29, 2019:
Strip Naked
bleurowz comments on Dec 29, 2019:
Saw this on Facebook today and thought it would be perfect to post here.
What word would you leave?
Use your Agnostic/Humanist member name!
My answer would be: benevolence
Storm1752 replies on Dec 29, 2019:
Strip Naked
Living our life fully and deeply requires courage.
BitFlipper comments on Dec 27, 2019:
Yes, but how? There's always a diagnosis, but how about a treatment?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 28, 2019:
@dare2dream I agree detaching emotionally from the superficial pursuit of money, power, false teachings, etc., Is good, but only if it's genuine.
If it's not, you're better off admitting it to yourself and accepting it.
BitFlipper comments on Dec 27, 2019:
Yes, but how? There's always a diagnosis, but how about a treatment?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 28, 2019:
@dare2dream I agree detaching emotionally from the superficial pursuit of money, power, false teachings, etc., Is good, but only if it's genuine.
If it's not, you're better off admitting it to yourself and accepting it.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
The article which cites "many scientists" and where I got my notions is:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@K9Kohle789 Only if the future were known could it be "pre-determined."
Leaving aside the parallel universe for a moment and focusing on this one, take a decision you are considering but haven't I made yet. You could choose from a number of different options, each of which will set in motion different chains of events, some very similar, some widely divergent. Or, you could decide to do nothing, which in itself is a decision with it's own results.
No matter what you do or don't do, however, the hours will tick away and today will pass and tomorrow will arrive.
If you've done nothing, things in that regard will have remained unchanged, but other chains of events you've previously set in motion will continue to unfold based on the interaction of millions, billions, even countless trillions of random events based on decisions other people have made in the same way as you, totally outside of your control.
If you've decided on a course of action and begin executing it, likewise an equal number of random events will interact with your actions at THAT juncture, and the result will be different, in some ways readily apparent, but in other ways unseen and unknown.
In other words, no matter what you do or don't do, the result will be random, to a large degree. So much of the result depends on events of which you'll never be aware. The people affected will never know where and how these unseen forces originated. So much of what you do cannot be "pre-determined," in other words, but are the result of countless random events outside of your control.
Not even 'god' would know!
Think where you are today compared to what you had planned a few years ago, say Do two outcomes resemble each other in any way? I'll guess not! Out lives more closely resemble ping-pong balls in a lottery hopper, than a carefully-orchestrated 'plan!' This is the reason.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
The article which cites "many scientists" and where I got my notions is:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@K9Kohle789 Only if the future were known could it be "pre-determined."
Leaving aside the parallel universe for a moment and focusing on this one, take a decision you are considering but haven't I made yet. You could choose from a number of different options, each of which will set in motion different chains of events, some very similar, some widely divergent. Or, you could decide to do nothing, which in itself is a decision with it's own results.
No matter what you do or don't do, however, the hours will tick away and today will pass and tomorrow will arrive.
If you've done nothing, things in that regard will have remained unchanged, but other chains of events you've previously set in motion will continue to unfold based on the interaction of millions, billions, even countless trillions of random events based on decisions other people have made in the same way as you, totally outside of your control.
If you've decided on a course of action and begin executing it, likewise an equal number of random events will interact with your actions at THAT juncture, and the result will be different, in some ways readily apparent, but in other ways unseen and unknown.
In other words, no matter what you do or don't do, the result will be random, to a large degree. So much of the result depends on events of which you'll never be aware. The people affected will never know where and how these unseen forces originated. So much of what you do cannot be "pre-determined," in other words, but are the result of countless random events outside of your control.
Not even 'god' would know!
Think where you are today compared to what you had planned a few years ago, say Do two outcomes resemble each other in any way? I'll guess not! Out lives more closely resemble ping-pong balls in a lottery hopper, than a carefully-orchestrated 'plan!' This is the reason.
No one teaches a newborn human to breath.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Not if 'god' was more subtle than that, perhaps a 'universal consciousness' not much different from other impersonal laws of nature like electromagnetism or the speed of light.
Something like that would have to be learned and respected as a 'force' which, like gravity or heat, defines the limits ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@RiverRick And with you.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Not if 'god' was more subtle than that, perhaps a 'universal consciousness' not much different from other impersonal laws of nature like electromagnetism or the speed of light.
Something like that would have to be learned and respected as a 'force' which, like gravity or heat, defines the limits ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@RiverRick And with you.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Gwendolyn2018 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Humans consistently give human characteristics to animals, chairs, cars, you name it. Interestingly, in early societies, especially Egypt, had many anthropomorphic deities. In addition, rivers, the sun, the moon, etc., were not symbolic of deities, but were the deities. From there, it was simple...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
The difference is we know better now. Anyone with a rational brain, that is.
I think there are plenty of scientists today who know as much more about the nature of reality as you and I, as we do than a neolithic caveman.
THAT'S an unsettling thought.
Gwendolyn2018 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Humans consistently give human characteristics to animals, chairs, cars, you name it. Interestingly, in early societies, especially Egypt, had many anthropomorphic deities. In addition, rivers, the sun, the moon, etc., were not symbolic of deities, but were the deities. From there, it was simple...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
The difference is we know better now. Anyone with a rational brain, that is.
I think there are plenty of scientists today who know as much more about the nature of reality as you and I, as we do than a neolithic caveman.
THAT'S an unsettling thought.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Gareth comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Physical laws are deduced by observation of natural events. There's no sense in making one up which has no observable effect and calling it 'god'. That's just silly.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Tell that to those people who corrupted the word to the point it's no longer useful as a convenient shorthand for consciousness. When one hears or reads it they automatically think of an "entity" much like a person, except with superhuman powers without limit. This is stupid and ridiculous by today's standards. Yet some people still believe it.
They'd be much better off, of course, building their beliefs systems on the much firmer foundation of observable fact. You and I know this.
But even scientists have to then take the latest factual building blocks and deduce from that new hypotheses on which to base future research. This is how knowledge accumulates.
So what are pure fictional speculations today are tomorrow's facts
Gareth comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Physical laws are deduced by observation of natural events. There's no sense in making one up which has no observable effect and calling it 'god'. That's just silly.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Tell that to those people who corrupted the word to the point it's no longer useful as a convenient shorthand for consciousness. When one hears or reads it they automatically think of an "entity" much like a person, except with superhuman powers without limit. This is stupid and ridiculous by today's standards. Yet some people still believe it.
They'd be much better off, of course, building their beliefs systems on the much firmer foundation of observable fact. You and I know this.
But even scientists have to then take the latest factual building blocks and deduce from that new hypotheses on which to base future research. This is how knowledge accumulates.
So what are pure fictional speculations today are tomorrow's facts
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
skado comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Anything *could* be, but I find that I can maintain peace of mind without depending on unsupported imaginings. If evidence emerges, I will adjust my worldview accordingly.
That said, I have no trouble using religious language metaphorically. I value peace and cooperation over war and discord....
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
As I said, 'god' is a word with too much baggage to be useful, except to describe what reality is NOT.
skado comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Anything *could* be, but I find that I can maintain peace of mind without depending on unsupported imaginings. If evidence emerges, I will adjust my worldview accordingly.
That said, I have no trouble using religious language metaphorically. I value peace and cooperation over war and discord....
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
As I said, 'god' is a word with too much baggage to be useful, except to describe what reality is NOT.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
LiterateHiker comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Invisible deities are imaginary, made up by humans.
As an atheist, I chose **rational thought**, not magical beliefs.
I feel comfortable with mystery in life. Science is advancing every year.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
I totally agree and that's my point exactly.
LiterateHiker comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Invisible deities are imaginary, made up by humans.
As an atheist, I chose **rational thought**, not magical beliefs.
I feel comfortable with mystery in life. Science is advancing every year.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
I totally agree and that's my point exactly.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Archeus_Lore comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Maybe it is DOG's thought that is limited, and we humans are the real gods, maybe this speculation is a complete waste of time too.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
You got something better to do? I don't, at the moment.
Archeus_Lore comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Maybe it is DOG's thought that is limited, and we humans are the real gods, maybe this speculation is a complete waste of time too.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
You got something better to do? I don't, at the moment.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
AtheistReader comments on Dec 23, 2019:
People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@AtheistReader Interesting. It goes to the question of, 'Where did the physical world 'come from?'
I'D say, with my only evidence Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics, since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it didn't 'come from' anything. It always was and always will be.
How can that be? After all, everything comes from something.
Not true.
Everything just changes form, from matter into energy and back again, depending on other forces acting on, and interacting with, it.
I don't think, then, there is any such thing as intelligent design, because I don't think anything WAS designed.
Ask yourself the question: can you imagine things being any other way?
As far as human "exceptipnalism" is concerned, I personally doubt we are exceptional in any way, but just a next logical step in a process of increasing complexity.
If you ask me, we should be taking a much more active role in accelerating this process, rather than endlessly debating the "morality" of "playing god" and interfering with the "natural way of things."
We ARE "the nature of things!" That's like saying doctors interfere with 'god's,' will by treating patients! Or lifeguards shouldn't save drowning swimmers. Or firemen should let people fry in a burning building...
There is no way to know to what this process could lead. And I'm not talking about horse/human hybrids...
AtheistReader comments on Dec 23, 2019:
People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@AtheistReader Interesting. It goes to the question of, 'Where did the physical world 'come from?'
I'D say, with my only evidence Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics, since matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, it didn't 'come from' anything. It always was and always will be.
How can that be? After all, everything comes from something.
Not true.
Everything just changes form, from matter into energy and back again, depending on other forces acting on, and interacting with, it.
I don't think, then, there is any such thing as intelligent design, because I don't think anything WAS designed.
Ask yourself the question: can you imagine things being any other way?
As far as human "exceptipnalism" is concerned, I personally doubt we are exceptional in any way, but just a next logical step in a process of increasing complexity.
If you ask me, we should be taking a much more active role in accelerating this process, rather than endlessly debating the "morality" of "playing god" and interfering with the "natural way of things."
We ARE "the nature of things!" That's like saying doctors interfere with 'god's,' will by treating patients! Or lifeguards shouldn't save drowning swimmers. Or firemen should let people fry in a burning building...
There is no way to know to what this process could lead. And I'm not talking about horse/human hybrids...
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
JohnnyQB comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Then why call these natural occurrences within our Universe, god ? The gods of religion are supernatural agents that interact and suspend the natural occurrences of the Universe for our personal agenda. Two very different things, and not interchangeable, nor related in any way.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@JohnnyQB Again, I, and you, and many other people, DON'T call it 'god,' any more than we call 'science' a religion.
SOME people DO call it a secular religion, but science is in fact the opposite of religion. And much more amazing..
The one MUST be believed 'or else,' the other (if proven) cannot be questioned (unless disproven).
The one denies nature as an illusion, the other describes nature in ever more minute detail, each detail more astounding than the one preceding it.
The one defines 'god' as transcending the natural world, the other defines 'god' AS the natural world, in a manner of speaking. Or more precisely doesn't call it 'god' at all, but, simply, 'it.'
So the word 'god' has too much baggage to be useful, other than to describe what 'it' is NOT.
JohnnyQB comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Then why call these natural occurrences within our Universe, god ? The gods of religion are supernatural agents that interact and suspend the natural occurrences of the Universe for our personal agenda. Two very different things, and not interchangeable, nor related in any way.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@JohnnyQB Again, I, and you, and many other people, DON'T call it 'god,' any more than we call 'science' a religion.
SOME people DO call it a secular religion, but science is in fact the opposite of religion. And much more amazing..
The one MUST be believed 'or else,' the other (if proven) cannot be questioned (unless disproven).
The one denies nature as an illusion, the other describes nature in ever more minute detail, each detail more astounding than the one preceding it.
The one defines 'god' as transcending the natural world, the other defines 'god' AS the natural world, in a manner of speaking. Or more precisely doesn't call it 'god' at all, but, simply, 'it.'
So the word 'god' has too much baggage to be useful, other than to describe what 'it' is NOT.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Heraclitus comments on Dec 23, 2019:
If you are suggesting that our thoughts and nature are in some way limited by the very nature of nature...well, yes. Did humans anthropomorphize nature...well, yes to that, too. But, what need is there to call nature, even if it involves some elementary consciousness, a god? I am not into nature...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
It's not that I'M calling it 'god.' It's that some other people interested in understanding "reality" do, indirectly, by imagining consciousness is centered in a hierarchy, going from the least to the most organized, which must have an apex, a crown.
This is patterned on man-made social structures, right? But it could be an anarchy instead, or a democracy. Or something else. Or nothing.
Maybe we just ARE.
And to suggest we and/or our self-realization are to be "worshipped" is ridiculous, and may betray a misunderstanding of who and what we are, which is everything, so to speak.
Should "everything" be worshipped? Of course not.
Heraclitus comments on Dec 23, 2019:
If you are suggesting that our thoughts and nature are in some way limited by the very nature of nature...well, yes. Did humans anthropomorphize nature...well, yes to that, too. But, what need is there to call nature, even if it involves some elementary consciousness, a god? I am not into nature...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
It's not that I'M calling it 'god.' It's that some other people interested in understanding "reality" do, indirectly, by imagining consciousness is centered in a hierarchy, going from the least to the most organized, which must have an apex, a crown.
This is patterned on man-made social structures, right? But it could be an anarchy instead, or a democracy. Or something else. Or nothing.
Maybe we just ARE.
And to suggest we and/or our self-realization are to be "worshipped" is ridiculous, and may betray a misunderstanding of who and what we are, which is everything, so to speak.
Should "everything" be worshipped? Of course not.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Omnedon comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Comparing that kind of hypothetical "force" with actual observable forces reminds me of what Deepak Chopra does when he applies various scientific terms out of their proper context. Electromagnetism and gravity and heat all exist. There is a speed of light. But our freedom of thought and action, ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Your freedom of thought, it seems to me, is limited only by your imagination--your consciousness. Your freedom of action is limited by your physical environment.
So the only difference between you and the fictitious 'god' of some people's imagination is strictly physical; what's the more important thing about you, your body or your mind?
If you think they are one and the same thing, there is nothing to talk about, but THAT'S what these "scientists," from neurophysicists to quantum physicists to every other one else interested in this subject from an objective, 'scientific' point of view, are in a quandry about. There is the body, including your brain, then there are thoughts...what connects the two? Consciousness. The higher up on the food chain you go, the more advanced your thoughts are able to become, until you finally arrive at self-awareness.
This begs the question: is it possible to go still higher?
What about more advanced civilizations on other planets, from other dimensions, or other 'planes' of existence--if they exist?
We can SAY there ARE no such things, just like no fairy cities in the sky or purple dragons in your garage.
That may be true.
Then again, our ancestors thought the Earth, then the Sun, was the center of the universe, and neither are even the center of our Galaxy, which is not even close to being at the center of the universe.
For all we know, there are billions of galaxies.
Think about that.
Omnedon comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Comparing that kind of hypothetical "force" with actual observable forces reminds me of what Deepak Chopra does when he applies various scientific terms out of their proper context. Electromagnetism and gravity and heat all exist. There is a speed of light. But our freedom of thought and action, ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Your freedom of thought, it seems to me, is limited only by your imagination--your consciousness. Your freedom of action is limited by your physical environment.
So the only difference between you and the fictitious 'god' of some people's imagination is strictly physical; what's the more important thing about you, your body or your mind?
If you think they are one and the same thing, there is nothing to talk about, but THAT'S what these "scientists," from neurophysicists to quantum physicists to every other one else interested in this subject from an objective, 'scientific' point of view, are in a quandry about. There is the body, including your brain, then there are thoughts...what connects the two? Consciousness. The higher up on the food chain you go, the more advanced your thoughts are able to become, until you finally arrive at self-awareness.
This begs the question: is it possible to go still higher?
What about more advanced civilizations on other planets, from other dimensions, or other 'planes' of existence--if they exist?
We can SAY there ARE no such things, just like no fairy cities in the sky or purple dragons in your garage.
That may be true.
Then again, our ancestors thought the Earth, then the Sun, was the center of the universe, and neither are even the center of our Galaxy, which is not even close to being at the center of the universe.
For all we know, there are billions of galaxies.
Think about that.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
wordywalt comments on Dec 23, 2019:
God isn't. It does not exist, but a false human conception.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
If you define 'god' as consciousness, it exists. If everything has consciousness, from the very tiniest particle, to you (very big IFs), everything is 'god.'
So, the line of thought goes, the people who created these religions (and god) were really trying to describe, explain, and understand consciousness, their own and everyone elses'.
That they projected THEIR and everybody else's consciousness into a separate "entity" or "entities" may have been simply a result of their inferior understanding of the nature of the physical universe and what are it's constituent parts.
As our understanding of it--and consciousness--increases, it stands to reason, the closer we get to understanding "reality" itself.
wordywalt comments on Dec 23, 2019:
God isn't. It does not exist, but a false human conception.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
If you define 'god' as consciousness, it exists. If everything has consciousness, from the very tiniest particle, to you (very big IFs), everything is 'god.'
So, the line of thought goes, the people who created these religions (and god) were really trying to describe, explain, and understand consciousness, their own and everyone elses'.
That they projected THEIR and everybody else's consciousness into a separate "entity" or "entities" may have been simply a result of their inferior understanding of the nature of the physical universe and what are it's constituent parts.
As our understanding of it--and consciousness--increases, it stands to reason, the closer we get to understanding "reality" itself.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Atheist3 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Bullsiht! God does not exist in any way or in any form. The rest is just illusion & delusion. Or do you have any evidence? Évidence is everything.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
I have only my own experience as a living, breathing, conscious person. Do I exist? Do you? Does the chair you're sitting in?
Atheist3 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Bullsiht! God does not exist in any way or in any form. The rest is just illusion & delusion. Or do you have any evidence? Évidence is everything.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
I have only my own experience as a living, breathing, conscious person. Do I exist? Do you? Does the chair you're sitting in?
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
rogueflyer comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Non of the above. God is a figment of your imagination.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Not talking about 'god' as a 'thing' or 'entity,' but as consciousness. Or are you yourself a figment of your own imagination?
Do I exist, or are you just making me up?
rogueflyer comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Non of the above. God is a figment of your imagination.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Not talking about 'god' as a 'thing' or 'entity,' but as consciousness. Or are you yourself a figment of your own imagination?
Do I exist, or are you just making me up?
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
motrubl4u comments on Dec 24, 2019:
Fictional character. Not sure why you would even ask that kind of a question here expecting something different.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Fictional character? I'm not talking about ANY kind of "person" or "entity" at all, except in the sense we ALL are and we all have consciousness.
What sets us apart as humans is, we are able to talk about it, are aware of it.
But according to these "scientists," everything has consciousness, right down to the minutest quark. That's why it's called "universal."
Animate objects have much more advanced consciousness, of course, with sophistication and self-awareness increasing the 'higher' up you go.
Which leaves open the question, are there still MORE advanced organisms than US in the universe, and if so how does THEIR consciousness compare to ours?
Whether you lend credence to any of this or not is up to you.
motrubl4u comments on Dec 24, 2019:
Fictional character. Not sure why you would even ask that kind of a question here expecting something different.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Fictional character? I'm not talking about ANY kind of "person" or "entity" at all, except in the sense we ALL are and we all have consciousness.
What sets us apart as humans is, we are able to talk about it, are aware of it.
But according to these "scientists," everything has consciousness, right down to the minutest quark. That's why it's called "universal."
Animate objects have much more advanced consciousness, of course, with sophistication and self-awareness increasing the 'higher' up you go.
Which leaves open the question, are there still MORE advanced organisms than US in the universe, and if so how does THEIR consciousness compare to ours?
Whether you lend credence to any of this or not is up to you.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
HerbertNewsam comments on Dec 24, 2019:
The first 2 words are a problem, " is 'god'" no, god isn't. The force of nature already is impersonal, so that doesn't work well. A "universal consciousness" is a stab at mystifying the simple fact of not understanding how our brains work. The fact we use sound, sight, and touch for communication ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Yeah, I see it.
I think of myself as inhabiting a body, but it could just as easily be some other body and it'd still be me.
Or would it?
If I was different in looks, physiology, and circumstances, would I be the same person?
Is there something uniquely ME about me, or am I interchangeable with everyone else?
Are we ALL interchangeable, or is there something uniquely YOU about you?
Btw, I can't speak for "many scientists," but I'm not sure they "believe" consciousness is universal, just that it MIGHT be.
HerbertNewsam comments on Dec 24, 2019:
The first 2 words are a problem, " is 'god'" no, god isn't. The force of nature already is impersonal, so that doesn't work well. A "universal consciousness" is a stab at mystifying the simple fact of not understanding how our brains work. The fact we use sound, sight, and touch for communication ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Yeah, I see it.
I think of myself as inhabiting a body, but it could just as easily be some other body and it'd still be me.
Or would it?
If I was different in looks, physiology, and circumstances, would I be the same person?
Is there something uniquely ME about me, or am I interchangeable with everyone else?
Are we ALL interchangeable, or is there something uniquely YOU about you?
Btw, I can't speak for "many scientists," but I'm not sure they "believe" consciousness is universal, just that it MIGHT be.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
FiliusInfernum comments on Dec 24, 2019:
I'm not sure, but I do know that a perfect vacuum, hypothetically, is a truly unrivaled and one of a kinda anomaly.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
What's your point?
FiliusInfernum comments on Dec 24, 2019:
I'm not sure, but I do know that a perfect vacuum, hypothetically, is a truly unrivaled and one of a kinda anomaly.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
What's your point?
Your in-person community?
KKGator comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Don't have any, don't want any.
I do not like most people.
I have no interest in hanging out with them.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Ditto.
KKGator comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Don't have any, don't want any.
I do not like most people.
I have no interest in hanging out with them.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
Ditto.
Your in-person community?
Ellen-SoCal comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Social nudism. Nothing brings respect and enjoyment of life than having no way to judge another by the clothes they wear. Look up AANR for more information.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@Ellen-SoCal I wouldn't because I have an ugly penis. Don't tell anyone!
Ellen-SoCal comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Social nudism. Nothing brings respect and enjoyment of life than having no way to judge another by the clothes they wear. Look up AANR for more information.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@Ellen-SoCal I wouldn't because I have an ugly penis. Don't tell anyone!
Do you approve capital punishment?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
I usually endorse the death penalty for people like Hitler, Ted Bundy, George W. Bush, etc.
Guilt must be CERTAIN, the crime(s) must be truly horrifying, and the creep has to be without remorse and beyond rehabilitation without a doubt.
(just kidding about W.
He only deserves brutal torture.)
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@vjohnson51 If I thought that, the death penalty would be too good for him.
Solitary confinement (no books, tv, visitors, correspondence, NOTHING...just him and four blank walls, a bunk, a stiff wooden chair) for life.
That'd be worse than death.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
I usually endorse the death penalty for people like Hitler, Ted Bundy, George W. Bush, etc.
Guilt must be CERTAIN, the crime(s) must be truly horrifying, and the creep has to be without remorse and beyond rehabilitation without a doubt.
(just kidding about W.
He only deserves brutal torture.)
Storm1752 replies on Dec 24, 2019:
@vjohnson51 If I thought that, the death penalty would be too good for him.
Solitary confinement (no books, tv, visitors, correspondence, NOTHING...just him and four blank walls, a bunk, a stiff wooden chair) for life.
That'd be worse than death.
I haven't been here in a long time, i started here when the site was just starting up and made a few...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Compared to when?
It seems dominated by atheists of the rude and dogmatic variety...does that sound familiar? Even though it's called Agnostics.com (oh AND freethinkers, atheists, humanists etc.) you wouldn't know it by the way they throw their weight around, belittle, berate, and insult anyone who...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@AnneWimsey Unicorns? Truthfully, I rarely think about them. Pegasus is a unicorn with wings, right? I went to the Kentucky Derby one year and they are very popular there.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Compared to when?
It seems dominated by atheists of the rude and dogmatic variety...does that sound familiar? Even though it's called Agnostics.com (oh AND freethinkers, atheists, humanists etc.) you wouldn't know it by the way they throw their weight around, belittle, berate, and insult anyone who...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@AnneWimsey Unicorns? Truthfully, I rarely think about them. Pegasus is a unicorn with wings, right? I went to the Kentucky Derby one year and they are very popular there.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
JohnnyQB comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Then why call these natural occurrences within our Universe, god ? The gods of religion are supernatural agents that interact and suspend the natural occurrences of the Universe for our personal agenda. Two very different things, and not interchangeable, nor related in any way.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@JohnnyQB Conversely, there's no need NOT to call it 'god.'
Consciousness pervades every particle of matter. With every increase in complexity comes a corresponding leap in consciousness. To our KNOWLEDGE we are the most complex organism, but are we, really?
What about organisms which were once at our level of complexity but continued to evolve, such as from a much more ancient world and therefore system, a million or millions of years older?
Could it not be possible there are 'alien' races much more advanced physically, neurally, with much greater powers of perception, etc. Races of beings which would seem godlike compared to us?
I don't think that's much of a stretch. No evidence to speak of, really, but much more plausible than an old-school 'god' which supposedly has existed forever for no other reason than it just HAS.
Also true, why postulate a 'god' at all?
The other 'mystery' of the universe is the question, Has it always existed, or did it come into being at some point?
The answer to that one should be obvious: since energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, it MUST have always existed! In one form or another, Big Bang or no Big Bang.
So if one equates energy/mass and consciousness, and call consciousness a form of energy, it cannot be created or destroyed either, and has always existed.
JohnnyQB comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Then why call these natural occurrences within our Universe, god ? The gods of religion are supernatural agents that interact and suspend the natural occurrences of the Universe for our personal agenda. Two very different things, and not interchangeable, nor related in any way.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@JohnnyQB Conversely, there's no need NOT to call it 'god.'
Consciousness pervades every particle of matter. With every increase in complexity comes a corresponding leap in consciousness. To our KNOWLEDGE we are the most complex organism, but are we, really?
What about organisms which were once at our level of complexity but continued to evolve, such as from a much more ancient world and therefore system, a million or millions of years older?
Could it not be possible there are 'alien' races much more advanced physically, neurally, with much greater powers of perception, etc. Races of beings which would seem godlike compared to us?
I don't think that's much of a stretch. No evidence to speak of, really, but much more plausible than an old-school 'god' which supposedly has existed forever for no other reason than it just HAS.
Also true, why postulate a 'god' at all?
The other 'mystery' of the universe is the question, Has it always existed, or did it come into being at some point?
The answer to that one should be obvious: since energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, it MUST have always existed! In one form or another, Big Bang or no Big Bang.
So if one equates energy/mass and consciousness, and call consciousness a form of energy, it cannot be created or destroyed either, and has always existed.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
The article which cites "many scientists" and where I got my notions is:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@K9Kohle789 Ummm....do bees and ants communicate with each other telepathically, you mean? Or something like that?
I don't know; I doubt it, but who knows? Instincts can mysterious.
As far as we're concerned, I'm thinking of 'energy' common to all matter which with increasing complexity becomes more and more self-aware. That may suggest a 'collective consciousness' of some kind, at least at it's most evolved level. It doesn't seem the scientists themselves have much more than a vague notion what that really means... but if there IS any validity to it, that may be the source of man's conception of 'god,' and the wellspring from which religion itself originated.
Sorry, I appreciate your respect for T.S. Eliot and the book you're reading, but do YOU think past and present (and future) exist simultaneously? I can't see it.
I CAN see that time is a kind of illusion. Organisms--and inanimate objects for that matter-come into being, have a life cycle, and die. It's a chemical process governed by physical laws.
TIME only exists in our minds relative to our OWN life cycle and OTHER life cycles. I personally do NOT think any of it is pre-determined.
Moreover, the idea some 'god,' even supposing one DID exist, knows the future is ludicrous, and apparently comes from the "paradox" between "free will" and the supposed fact 'god' knows EVERYTHING, including the future, making it a fait accompli. But since the 'future' hasn't happened yet, there is nothing yet to know! -.https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility/amp/
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
The article which cites "many scientists" and where I got my notions is:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@K9Kohle789 Ummm....do bees and ants communicate with each other telepathically, you mean? Or something like that?
I don't know; I doubt it, but who knows? Instincts can mysterious.
As far as we're concerned, I'm thinking of 'energy' common to all matter which with increasing complexity becomes more and more self-aware. That may suggest a 'collective consciousness' of some kind, at least at it's most evolved level. It doesn't seem the scientists themselves have much more than a vague notion what that really means... but if there IS any validity to it, that may be the source of man's conception of 'god,' and the wellspring from which religion itself originated.
Sorry, I appreciate your respect for T.S. Eliot and the book you're reading, but do YOU think past and present (and future) exist simultaneously? I can't see it.
I CAN see that time is a kind of illusion. Organisms--and inanimate objects for that matter-come into being, have a life cycle, and die. It's a chemical process governed by physical laws.
TIME only exists in our minds relative to our OWN life cycle and OTHER life cycles. I personally do NOT think any of it is pre-determined.
Moreover, the idea some 'god,' even supposing one DID exist, knows the future is ludicrous, and apparently comes from the "paradox" between "free will" and the supposed fact 'god' knows EVERYTHING, including the future, making it a fait accompli. But since the 'future' hasn't happened yet, there is nothing yet to know! -.https://qz.com/1184574/the-idea-that-everything-from-spoons-to-stones-are-conscious-is-gaining-academic-credibility/amp/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
AnneWimsey comments on Dec 23, 2019:
If "it" is simply a force/manifestation of gravity or whatever, why think of "it" as "gawd"????
More importantly, what difference would it make to anyone (assuming we didn't fall off the earth...)
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
AnneWimsey comments on Dec 23, 2019:
If "it" is simply a force/manifestation of gravity or whatever, why think of "it" as "gawd"????
More importantly, what difference would it make to anyone (assuming we didn't fall off the earth...)
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
t1nick comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Not any scientists I am familiar with.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
The article:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
t1nick comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Not any scientists I am familiar with.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
The article:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Stephanie99 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
The is evidence for electromagnetism and the speed of light. There is none for god.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Here's the article:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Stephanie99 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
The is evidence for electromagnetism and the speed of light. There is none for god.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Here's the article:https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 23, 2019:
“God” is just a label. To say that God did all this is just another way of saying that we don’t understand reality and have no idea what it means.
Yes, Universal Consciousness, if there is such, is a natural phenomenon. Giving a human face to universal consciousness might be justified if ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
The article from which I extropolated my admittedly https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/ idea:
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 23, 2019:
“God” is just a label. To say that God did all this is just another way of saying that we don’t understand reality and have no idea what it means.
Yes, Universal Consciousness, if there is such, is a natural phenomenon. Giving a human face to universal consciousness might be justified if ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
The article from which I extropolated my admittedly https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/ idea:
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
aintmisbehaven comments on Dec 23, 2019:
I've had one and ONLY one "spiritual experience". it was so profound as to make me believe that there is SOMEthing beyond this physical realm we live in. not sure if I remember feeling some/much of what you wrote above as a result of that experience, but I do think it possible that what we humans ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I think reincarnation may well be a 'natural' process, if it's real.
Miracles? Ditto.
aintmisbehaven comments on Dec 23, 2019:
I've had one and ONLY one "spiritual experience". it was so profound as to make me believe that there is SOMEthing beyond this physical realm we live in. not sure if I remember feeling some/much of what you wrote above as a result of that experience, but I do think it possible that what we humans ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I think reincarnation may well be a 'natural' process, if it's real.
Miracles? Ditto.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
AtheistReader comments on Dec 23, 2019:
People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@AtheistReader The article from who j I extropolated this train of https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/:
AtheistReader comments on Dec 23, 2019:
People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@AtheistReader The article from who j I extropolated this train of https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/:
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
JohnnyQB comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Then why call these natural occurrences within our Universe, god ? The gods of religion are supernatural agents that interact and suspend the natural occurrences of the Universe for our personal agenda. Two very different things, and not interchangeable, nor related in any way.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I'm not talking about the "gods of religion," but that consciousness which men pervert INTO religion.https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
JohnnyQB comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Then why call these natural occurrences within our Universe, god ? The gods of religion are supernatural agents that interact and suspend the natural occurrences of the Universe for our personal agenda. Two very different things, and not interchangeable, nor related in any way.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I'm not talking about the "gods of religion," but that consciousness which men pervert INTO religion.https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Heraclitus comments on Dec 23, 2019:
If you are suggesting that our thoughts and nature are in some way limited by the very nature of nature...well, yes. Did humans anthropomorphize nature...well, yes to that, too. But, what need is there to call nature, even if it involves some elementary consciousness, a god? I am not into nature...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I'm saying that's what men do when they create religions. Maybe the 'god' I think may exist is the impersonal consciousness all matter down to every single atom has.
I don't KNOW exactly what I'm saying. I'm not trying to start a religion here!https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Heraclitus comments on Dec 23, 2019:
If you are suggesting that our thoughts and nature are in some way limited by the very nature of nature...well, yes. Did humans anthropomorphize nature...well, yes to that, too. But, what need is there to call nature, even if it involves some elementary consciousness, a god? I am not into nature...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I'm saying that's what men do when they create religions. Maybe the 'god' I think may exist is the impersonal consciousness all matter down to every single atom has.
I don't KNOW exactly what I'm saying. I'm not trying to start a religion here!https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
RiverRick comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Many scientists? You sound like Trump now...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I'm going by the articles I read.https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
RiverRick comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Many scientists? You sound like Trump now...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I'm going by the articles I read.https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
Detritus comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Without empirical evidence your ‘universal consciousness’ is effectively non-existent. If it existed it would manifest and be known. It might be that we have not progressed enough to describe it, the way people could not understand lightning in the Stone Age. Or nuclear forces until the 20th ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Why go all the way to 'universal' consciousness, then? Why not just your OWN consciousness, as a human your self-awareness?
I'm not saying it's 'god,' merely what men CALL it. By doing so they obscure it's true nature by then giving it emotions and feelings, when it's really an impersonal 'energy' which flows through EVERYTHING.
That's the thought, anyway. https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Detritus comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Without empirical evidence your ‘universal consciousness’ is effectively non-existent. If it existed it would manifest and be known. It might be that we have not progressed enough to describe it, the way people could not understand lightning in the Stone Age. Or nuclear forces until the 20th ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Why go all the way to 'universal' consciousness, then? Why not just your OWN consciousness, as a human your self-awareness?
I'm not saying it's 'god,' merely what men CALL it. By doing so they obscure it's true nature by then giving it emotions and feelings, when it's really an impersonal 'energy' which flows through EVERYTHING.
That's the thought, anyway. https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
creative51 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
God is a concept invented by neurotic and insecure humans who are afraid to face the fact that we just another creature on a small planet in a very very large universe. It gives us a false sense of importance and justifies our unfriendly and inappropriate behavior.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Even these scientists don't know what this 'consciousness' is; they just theorize we, animals, stones, dirt, everything, has it.
True? No clue. To me it's just an interesting idea.https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
creative51 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
God is a concept invented by neurotic and insecure humans who are afraid to face the fact that we just another creature on a small planet in a very very large universe. It gives us a false sense of importance and justifies our unfriendly and inappropriate behavior.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Even these scientists don't know what this 'consciousness' is; they just theorize we, animals, stones, dirt, everything, has it.
True? No clue. To me it's just an interesting idea.https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
redbai comments on Dec 23, 2019:
I believe that starting the post of with "Is 'god'" makes the rest irrelevant. The exact same queston could have been asked without inserting the "god" word. Such as "Is there a governing principle that describes and limits the human ability to have freedom of thought and action similar to other ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I was just saying maybe HUMANS called it 'god,' and built religions around it make it comprehensible. But 'it' was simply consciousness itself.
By giving 'it' human characteristics, then, they only obscured it's true nature.
The article: https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
redbai comments on Dec 23, 2019:
I believe that starting the post of with "Is 'god'" makes the rest irrelevant. The exact same queston could have been asked without inserting the "god" word. Such as "Is there a governing principle that describes and limits the human ability to have freedom of thought and action similar to other ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I was just saying maybe HUMANS called it 'god,' and built religions around it make it comprehensible. But 'it' was simply consciousness itself.
By giving 'it' human characteristics, then, they only obscured it's true nature.
The article: https://mindmatters.ai/2019/08/why-some-scientists-believe-the-universe-is-conscious/
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
resserts comments on Dec 23, 2019:
That seems to me to be a contrived, needlessly complex explanation for the rise of religious thought among early people who grappled with things like where the sun went at night and why diseases struck down some people and not others. I don't think these folks who lacked an understanding of ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Of course not. They may have just taken what they percieved with their five senses and made sense of it the only way they knew how: through their own very limited understanding...that's why it ended up turning into the convoluted mess we call religion!
Maybe.
resserts comments on Dec 23, 2019:
That seems to me to be a contrived, needlessly complex explanation for the rise of religious thought among early people who grappled with things like where the sun went at night and why diseases struck down some people and not others. I don't think these folks who lacked an understanding of ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Of course not. They may have just taken what they percieved with their five senses and made sense of it the only way they knew how: through their own very limited understanding...that's why it ended up turning into the convoluted mess we call religion!
Maybe.
Is 'god' an impersonal force of nature, a 'universal consciousness' similar in quality to other ...
AtheistReader comments on Dec 23, 2019:
People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I didn't mean to theorize religions accurately depict this purported consciousness--far from it.
Rather, they may be co-opting and misinterpreting the limits that consciousness puts on us. By doing so, they would be only muddling and confusing the issue, because they are speaking out of ignorance.
For instance, why DOES 'god' allow "bad things happen to good people" and vice versa? Why DOESN'T 'he' intercede, answer prayer, etc.?
Because 'god' ISN'T a person, an entity, with human characteristics, but simply that 'thing,' according to this concept, which brings awareness to matter?
If it's true even electrons have this consciousness, maybe the higher up the evolutionary ladder you go, and the more ordered and complex an animated life form becomes, all the way up to animals and humans, the more SELF-aware it becomes.
But maybe that's ALL it does; if so, the only operative 'divine' laws which apply come from how one consciousness interacts with another, like how atoms attract and repel each other depending on their chemical and electromagnetic properties.
So when people erroneously have tried to explain these impersonal interactions in personal terms, they end up rendering the whole complex process meaningless and worse, nonsensical and ridiculous.
That's my idea anyway, though I'm sure I'm poorly expressing it.
AtheistReader comments on Dec 23, 2019:
People used to think that thunders were acts of gods. Are the clouds "a governing principle"? Is there one? The natural physical "laws" aren't really laws, are they? They are simply useful ways to describe the world around us. And I believe that initially, when there are unexplained things, we ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
I didn't mean to theorize religions accurately depict this purported consciousness--far from it.
Rather, they may be co-opting and misinterpreting the limits that consciousness puts on us. By doing so, they would be only muddling and confusing the issue, because they are speaking out of ignorance.
For instance, why DOES 'god' allow "bad things happen to good people" and vice versa? Why DOESN'T 'he' intercede, answer prayer, etc.?
Because 'god' ISN'T a person, an entity, with human characteristics, but simply that 'thing,' according to this concept, which brings awareness to matter?
If it's true even electrons have this consciousness, maybe the higher up the evolutionary ladder you go, and the more ordered and complex an animated life form becomes, all the way up to animals and humans, the more SELF-aware it becomes.
But maybe that's ALL it does; if so, the only operative 'divine' laws which apply come from how one consciousness interacts with another, like how atoms attract and repel each other depending on their chemical and electromagnetic properties.
So when people erroneously have tried to explain these impersonal interactions in personal terms, they end up rendering the whole complex process meaningless and worse, nonsensical and ridiculous.
That's my idea anyway, though I'm sure I'm poorly expressing it.
I haven't been here in a long time, i started here when the site was just starting up and made a few...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Compared to when?
It seems dominated by atheists of the rude and dogmatic variety...does that sound familiar? Even though it's called Agnostics.com (oh AND freethinkers, atheists, humanists etc.) you wouldn't know it by the way they throw their weight around, belittle, berate, and insult anyone who...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@Allamanda I'll cheer up AFTER Xmas is over! My attitude improves immediately thereafter, starting with December 26, and skyrockets around New Year's Eve!
It's gonna be a great 2020...I can see it now (get it?).
Storm1752 comments on Dec 23, 2019:
Compared to when?
It seems dominated by atheists of the rude and dogmatic variety...does that sound familiar? Even though it's called Agnostics.com (oh AND freethinkers, atheists, humanists etc.) you wouldn't know it by the way they throw their weight around, belittle, berate, and insult anyone who...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
@Allamanda I'll cheer up AFTER Xmas is over! My attitude improves immediately thereafter, starting with December 26, and skyrockets around New Year's Eve!
It's gonna be a great 2020...I can see it now (get it?).
Is the entire universe God?[mindmatters.ai]
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 22, 2019:
It’s a good article about universal consciousness—thanks.
We are not talking about anything supernatural here, rather an aspect of nature that is not understood. It might be a mistake to equate universal consciousness with God.
I consider universal consciousness to be the most likely ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Good point.
It would depend how you define god.
If as the 'governing principle' in the sense natural physical laws govern life, so too consciousness might govern the mind (or the like), then it might be useful.
Not as a distinct 'entity' who bosses us around and metes out rewards and punishments, of course, but as a tangible 'thing' which defines the extent of, and limits to, our freedoms, beyond which we encounter resistance.
After all, natural physical laws limit our physical freedom...why should our consciousness not have limits as well?
It could be postulated some men then gave anthropomorphic characteristics, human emotions, thoughts and motives to something which is in reality a purely impersonal force of nature, no different in quality from electromagnetism, say, or the speed of light.
WilliamFleming comments on Dec 22, 2019:
It’s a good article about universal consciousness—thanks.
We are not talking about anything supernatural here, rather an aspect of nature that is not understood. It might be a mistake to equate universal consciousness with God.
I consider universal consciousness to be the most likely ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 23, 2019:
Good point.
It would depend how you define god.
If as the 'governing principle' in the sense natural physical laws govern life, so too consciousness might govern the mind (or the like), then it might be useful.
Not as a distinct 'entity' who bosses us around and metes out rewards and punishments, of course, but as a tangible 'thing' which defines the extent of, and limits to, our freedoms, beyond which we encounter resistance.
After all, natural physical laws limit our physical freedom...why should our consciousness not have limits as well?
It could be postulated some men then gave anthropomorphic characteristics, human emotions, thoughts and motives to something which is in reality a purely impersonal force of nature, no different in quality from electromagnetism, say, or the speed of light.
Do you approve capital punishment?
DiThor comments on Dec 22, 2019:
I have read the comments on this thread. As someone who have 3 people sitting on death row in 3 different states...I can assure you all three are guilty of murder...they admitted to their crime. They would rather be sitting on death row then be in prison for life. I don’t understand it either and ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
If you were the type to, say, rape and murder children, maybe you'd WANT what you did unto them, done unto you, to get yourself put out of your miserable, despicable life.
DiThor comments on Dec 22, 2019:
I have read the comments on this thread. As someone who have 3 people sitting on death row in 3 different states...I can assure you all three are guilty of murder...they admitted to their crime. They would rather be sitting on death row then be in prison for life. I don’t understand it either and ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
If you were the type to, say, rape and murder children, maybe you'd WANT what you did unto them, done unto you, to get yourself put out of your miserable, despicable life.
Ladies, do you find yourself depressed frequently?
rsb97080 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
Joking aside, I wonder just how much of it gets absorbed by the vagina. I thought that most of it just leaked out and made a wet spot.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
Some of it is absorbed...I read that before somewhere.
rsb97080 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
Joking aside, I wonder just how much of it gets absorbed by the vagina. I thought that most of it just leaked out and made a wet spot.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
Some of it is absorbed...I read that before somewhere.
Is the entire universe God?[mindmatters.ai]
Storm1752 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
Just a question; I've read the article twice and it still makes no sense but, hey, if all these scientists think it's absurdity is not obvious, who am I to laugh?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@Fernapple It's just too abstract and obtuse a concept to laugh. But thanks!
Storm1752 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
Just a question; I've read the article twice and it still makes no sense but, hey, if all these scientists think it's absurdity is not obvious, who am I to laugh?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@Fernapple It's just too abstract and obtuse a concept to laugh. But thanks!
Why so many posts about God?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
Some Agnostics think there MAY be such a thing as 'god,' IF you define the term broadly enough to include non-entity concepts like universal consciousness.
The universe is too big a place to close your mind entirely, people like me think.
Agnostics DON'T KNOW if there's a 'god' or not; therefore,...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@LiterateHiker Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to insult you. I hope you understood my point, and I totally respect YOUR point, of view.
I was just saying whereas atheists might be offended by people leaving the question open, Agnostics might welcome arguments both PRO and CON. Since the answer will never be arrived at anyway, it will always be, FOR AGNOSTICS, fodder for discussion.
It's not that we "aren't there yet' (atheist), or "hedging our bets" or "on our way" to either atheism or theism, it's just that from our point of view 'god' is an elastic concept which could mean anything (not necessarily an 'entity," with a brain and emotions and an agenda) and by some definition (energy? light? universal collective unconsciousness? something else?) exist, perhaps not anything we with our finite comprehension could even conceive.
I, for example, am an agnostic 'neo-deist,' and I just enjoy discussing the 'mysteries of life. ' It is an endlessly fascinating subject to me. But I know I'll never solve the riddle.
So what? Who cares?
Atheists DO seem to care, though, and often react with sometimes 'violent' contempt to even the suggestion they could be wrong (much like many theists).
I couldn't agree more with your hatred of the 'bible' and the idea of religiousity, especially when based on a distinct person-like creature who answers prayers and so forth...that's clearly nonsense in my opinion.
But to summarily condemn ANY opinion other than your own concerning the entire IDEA of 'god' is, frankly, arrogant and, yes, insulting. Spinoza and Decartes we're very intelligent men, but so were and are a lot of other intelligent, RATIONAL men who had and have divergent ideas.
I think a LOT of the atheists on here are EXTREMELY insulting to the more diffident, uncertain, and questioning Agnostics, who express opinions at odds with their absolute certainty about 'no god, no way!'
I've rambled on long enough. This 'discussion' will likewise drone and ramble on endlessly anyway, regardless of what I say.
Btw, you ARE biased. Just because it's REASONED doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's not an insult...everybody has biases; they are not necessarily pre-judgments if they are well-thought out and/or based on real-life experience.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 22, 2019:
Some Agnostics think there MAY be such a thing as 'god,' IF you define the term broadly enough to include non-entity concepts like universal consciousness.
The universe is too big a place to close your mind entirely, people like me think.
Agnostics DON'T KNOW if there's a 'god' or not; therefore,...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@LiterateHiker Sorry, I certainly didn't mean to insult you. I hope you understood my point, and I totally respect YOUR point, of view.
I was just saying whereas atheists might be offended by people leaving the question open, Agnostics might welcome arguments both PRO and CON. Since the answer will never be arrived at anyway, it will always be, FOR AGNOSTICS, fodder for discussion.
It's not that we "aren't there yet' (atheist), or "hedging our bets" or "on our way" to either atheism or theism, it's just that from our point of view 'god' is an elastic concept which could mean anything (not necessarily an 'entity," with a brain and emotions and an agenda) and by some definition (energy? light? universal collective unconsciousness? something else?) exist, perhaps not anything we with our finite comprehension could even conceive.
I, for example, am an agnostic 'neo-deist,' and I just enjoy discussing the 'mysteries of life. ' It is an endlessly fascinating subject to me. But I know I'll never solve the riddle.
So what? Who cares?
Atheists DO seem to care, though, and often react with sometimes 'violent' contempt to even the suggestion they could be wrong (much like many theists).
I couldn't agree more with your hatred of the 'bible' and the idea of religiousity, especially when based on a distinct person-like creature who answers prayers and so forth...that's clearly nonsense in my opinion.
But to summarily condemn ANY opinion other than your own concerning the entire IDEA of 'god' is, frankly, arrogant and, yes, insulting. Spinoza and Decartes we're very intelligent men, but so were and are a lot of other intelligent, RATIONAL men who had and have divergent ideas.
I think a LOT of the atheists on here are EXTREMELY insulting to the more diffident, uncertain, and questioning Agnostics, who express opinions at odds with their absolute certainty about 'no god, no way!'
I've rambled on long enough. This 'discussion' will likewise drone and ramble on endlessly anyway, regardless of what I say.
Btw, you ARE biased. Just because it's REASONED doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's not an insult...everybody has biases; they are not necessarily pre-judgments if they are well-thought out and/or based on real-life experience.
Ladies, do you find yourself depressed frequently?
BitFlipper comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The comedian Ron White suggested a pill for men, which makes semen taste like chocolate.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
Semen
BitFlipper comments on Dec 22, 2019:
The comedian Ron White suggested a pill for men, which makes semen taste like chocolate.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
Semen
Just trying to get a head count here. Who's an atheist and who isn't, and why?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 20, 2019:
I'm an 'agnostic neo-deist' today, since everybody, it seems, needs a label.
I suspect there MAY be a 'god' if you expand the meaning of the word to include a perfectly valid, scientific explanation, something far beyond what our current knowledge can comprehend.
But I don't KNOW that.
So I'll ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@FiliusInfernum I noticed you're a 'syneist' and an 'omnist..." Interesting. I'm definitely not an omnist, because I don't respect all religions equally
In fact, while I respect anyone's right to follow any religion, I think belief in any god is irrelevant.
Each of us, however, have spiritual natures, and should be in touch with them; god MAY have created them, or it could have been 'star people'--creatures from advanced civilizations from other worlds--but whatever their origins, our 'creators' are not and may never have been in contact with us, do not intercede on our behalf, and may never be known. That's what I think. I could be wrong.
There ARE other possibilities, of course, but I personally doubt them.
Syneism, from what I can gather, believes men and women create our own idea of god, and is convinced the time is coming when we finally 'update' our beliefs to make them more in keeping with the modern world, including the internet. So far so good.
For that to happen, though, the internet must remain free from restriction. That, I think, is a long shot.
So I guess you'd say until I see signs mankind is willing and able to make the leap into the present, I'll remain reclusive and mostly unconnected.
Except for a tiny fraction of the population, people live in the past and/or a fantastical version of the present which has nothing to do with reality. These people certainly have no 'real' future awareness, unless you count doomsday predictions of utter ruin. And without excitement for the future, they have been robbed of the most important part of their 'souls,' so to speak.
THIS is the worst thing religion has done: by forcing otherwise good people to believe in a mythical past, a counterfeit present, and a false future without real hope, it has warped their perceptions of the world beyond any chance of recovery of their true potential.
Do I think there is hope? Absolutely. Perhaps, Syneism and Omnism are great starts, along with other positive and encouraging developments, including a free and open internet.
How long it REMAINS that way is hard to tell.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 20, 2019:
I'm an 'agnostic neo-deist' today, since everybody, it seems, needs a label.
I suspect there MAY be a 'god' if you expand the meaning of the word to include a perfectly valid, scientific explanation, something far beyond what our current knowledge can comprehend.
But I don't KNOW that.
So I'll ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 22, 2019:
@FiliusInfernum I noticed you're a 'syneist' and an 'omnist..." Interesting. I'm definitely not an omnist, because I don't respect all religions equally
In fact, while I respect anyone's right to follow any religion, I think belief in any god is irrelevant.
Each of us, however, have spiritual natures, and should be in touch with them; god MAY have created them, or it could have been 'star people'--creatures from advanced civilizations from other worlds--but whatever their origins, our 'creators' are not and may never have been in contact with us, do not intercede on our behalf, and may never be known. That's what I think. I could be wrong.
There ARE other possibilities, of course, but I personally doubt them.
Syneism, from what I can gather, believes men and women create our own idea of god, and is convinced the time is coming when we finally 'update' our beliefs to make them more in keeping with the modern world, including the internet. So far so good.
For that to happen, though, the internet must remain free from restriction. That, I think, is a long shot.
So I guess you'd say until I see signs mankind is willing and able to make the leap into the present, I'll remain reclusive and mostly unconnected.
Except for a tiny fraction of the population, people live in the past and/or a fantastical version of the present which has nothing to do with reality. These people certainly have no 'real' future awareness, unless you count doomsday predictions of utter ruin. And without excitement for the future, they have been robbed of the most important part of their 'souls,' so to speak.
THIS is the worst thing religion has done: by forcing otherwise good people to believe in a mythical past, a counterfeit present, and a false future without real hope, it has warped their perceptions of the world beyond any chance of recovery of their true potential.
Do I think there is hope? Absolutely. Perhaps, Syneism and Omnism are great starts, along with other positive and encouraging developments, including a free and open internet.
How long it REMAINS that way is hard to tell.
Just trying to get a head count here. Who's an atheist and who isn't, and why?
Archeus_Lore comments on Dec 20, 2019:
I'll let Mr. Huxley say it for me.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Archeus_Lore Thank you. As a fellow agnostic
I'm mystified when some people insist we are "hedging our bets!" Like our position is a strategic stance designed to mollify god if/when he/she/it turns out to be real after all!
They just can't seem to understand ours is a permanent stance based on the only rational, reasonable, defensible grounds in existence: we just don't know and probably never will, unless 'god' comes out of hiding and 'reveals'
himself/herself/itself.
I for one am not holding my breath!
Archeus_Lore comments on Dec 20, 2019:
I'll let Mr. Huxley say it for me.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Archeus_Lore Thank you. As a fellow agnostic
I'm mystified when some people insist we are "hedging our bets!" Like our position is a strategic stance designed to mollify god if/when he/she/it turns out to be real after all!
They just can't seem to understand ours is a permanent stance based on the only rational, reasonable, defensible grounds in existence: we just don't know and probably never will, unless 'god' comes out of hiding and 'reveals'
himself/herself/itself.
I for one am not holding my breath!
Just trying to get a head count here. Who's an atheist and who isn't, and why?
Triphid comments on Dec 20, 2019:
Uhm, pardon me for asking, but your profile comments show that you claim to be both Atheist, Agnostic and a Believer plus a few others as well, so how does this relate to your trying to get a head count?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@FiliusInfernum Don't mind the rudeness of some of these 'members'...atheists, like theists, CAN be very dogmatic and smug about their beliefs.
Triphid comments on Dec 20, 2019:
Uhm, pardon me for asking, but your profile comments show that you claim to be both Atheist, Agnostic and a Believer plus a few others as well, so how does this relate to your trying to get a head count?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@FiliusInfernum Don't mind the rudeness of some of these 'members'...atheists, like theists, CAN be very dogmatic and smug about their beliefs.
I am just beginning to understand how interesting this site could become.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Just the normal human desire to explain who we are, where we came from, and the meaning of it all.
Plain as the nose on your face.
Religion happened when someone somewhere wrote one explanation down and declared it THE explanation.
Why everybody else AGREED is another story.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Triphid Very interesting...I hadn't seen that specific item, but have read a lot about how they structured the Jesus myth around Titus' victorious military campaign versus the Jewish revolutionaries who for a time successfully threw off Roman rule.
To become deified, an emperor had first to accomplish a 'heroic' military victory and bring riches and honor to the empire.
Plus, the Flavians were quite aware of the shame and debauchery of the previous emperors, who had thoroughly discredited the old gods...the empire was ripe for a total overhaul of their spiritual myths.
Since Rome had a 'media monopoly,' it explains how Christianity spread so quickly throughout the conquered lands, though it would take centuries for the transformation to be complete.
I intend to delve more deeply into this subject, but it is absolutely fascinating.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Just the normal human desire to explain who we are, where we came from, and the meaning of it all.
Plain as the nose on your face.
Religion happened when someone somewhere wrote one explanation down and declared it THE explanation.
Why everybody else AGREED is another story.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Triphid Very interesting...I hadn't seen that specific item, but have read a lot about how they structured the Jesus myth around Titus' victorious military campaign versus the Jewish revolutionaries who for a time successfully threw off Roman rule.
To become deified, an emperor had first to accomplish a 'heroic' military victory and bring riches and honor to the empire.
Plus, the Flavians were quite aware of the shame and debauchery of the previous emperors, who had thoroughly discredited the old gods...the empire was ripe for a total overhaul of their spiritual myths.
Since Rome had a 'media monopoly,' it explains how Christianity spread so quickly throughout the conquered lands, though it would take centuries for the transformation to be complete.
I intend to delve more deeply into this subject, but it is absolutely fascinating.
Just in case you might possibly have forgotten; we are god damn lucky to be here.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
We may have more than one chance, but thanks.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@GROG Maybe.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
We may have more than one chance, but thanks.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@GROG Maybe.
I’ve listened patiently for a few months trying to understand the dichotomy between Agnostics & ...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Joanne For one thing, Cayce has been dead since 1945 (?) and anyway the man you mentioned was a fraud himself. Many psychics came forward, but we're thwarted by ever-changing ground rules making collection of the "million dollar reward" impossible.
Have you actually READ anything about the Giza pyramids? I suggest you give it more than a superficial glance, THEN tell me what you think.
Anything on extraterrestrials? True, no specific proof, but if you can't follow logical threads to their logical conclusions and extrapolate certain things, you're just not thinking
Crop circles? Sure there have been hoaxsters, but that doesn't at all mean they account for ALL of them; in fact, it's been "proven" some cannot be explained away.
I'm not saying there is anything existent outside the normal physical laws which govern the universe. Far from it.
No magic tricks, miracles, fantastical creatures, etc.
I'm only saying a, say, million-year-old civilization, would know more about those physical laws than you and I.
There's no reason to absolutely reject the possibility these 'entities' have discovered things far beyond what we know at the present time on THIS planet.
And I'm saying there's no harm speculating, given the pace OUR knowledge is advancing at an ever accelerating rate, that knowledge would theoretically have no limit.
I know you want to keep everything "fact-based;" so do I.
That doesn't stop ME from being filled with wonder at our very existence, and having "spiritual" feelings as a result. That doesn't make me a starry-eyed dreamer, and there's nothing 'pie-in-the-sky' about speculating about the mysteries surrounding us.
Someday we'll know more. I wish I could put myself in the deep freeze and thaw myself out a thousand years from now and see where we're at then.
Okay so I dream a little bit.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Joanne For one thing, Cayce has been dead since 1945 (?) and anyway the man you mentioned was a fraud himself. Many psychics came forward, but we're thwarted by ever-changing ground rules making collection of the "million dollar reward" impossible.
Have you actually READ anything about the Giza pyramids? I suggest you give it more than a superficial glance, THEN tell me what you think.
Anything on extraterrestrials? True, no specific proof, but if you can't follow logical threads to their logical conclusions and extrapolate certain things, you're just not thinking
Crop circles? Sure there have been hoaxsters, but that doesn't at all mean they account for ALL of them; in fact, it's been "proven" some cannot be explained away.
I'm not saying there is anything existent outside the normal physical laws which govern the universe. Far from it.
No magic tricks, miracles, fantastical creatures, etc.
I'm only saying a, say, million-year-old civilization, would know more about those physical laws than you and I.
There's no reason to absolutely reject the possibility these 'entities' have discovered things far beyond what we know at the present time on THIS planet.
And I'm saying there's no harm speculating, given the pace OUR knowledge is advancing at an ever accelerating rate, that knowledge would theoretically have no limit.
I know you want to keep everything "fact-based;" so do I.
That doesn't stop ME from being filled with wonder at our very existence, and having "spiritual" feelings as a result. That doesn't make me a starry-eyed dreamer, and there's nothing 'pie-in-the-sky' about speculating about the mysteries surrounding us.
Someday we'll know more. I wish I could put myself in the deep freeze and thaw myself out a thousand years from now and see where we're at then.
Okay so I dream a little bit.
It takes more than an Atheist to over throw over obiedience authority of Religion.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
I think rules and regulations are necessary evils because many people cannot rule themselves.
The damage some people, left unfettered, would do to themselves, other people, and the world would be mind-boggling and possibly fatal.
It's unfortunate many LEADERS are likewise irresponsible and ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Castlepaloma Okay, sure, on a tribal level it might work, if organized/configured intelligently, and if insulated from society-at-large. I'd be curious to know the details, maybe even affiliate myself.
Anything I might look up?
As a larger 'macro' issue, however, it doesn't seem like something around which you could organize a huge country like the U.S.. You surely aren't suggesting THAT.
To successfully organize a small collective, it seems to me, it would take in itself a monumental effort to find and gather together specific types of people with common goals, purposes, political/ideological/social viewpoints.
Or are you saying that isn't necessary? Can anarchy itself be the organizing principle? Surely there's a need for 'police' of some sort, at the very least...or is everybody able to police themselves?
I'd need more details.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
I think rules and regulations are necessary evils because many people cannot rule themselves.
The damage some people, left unfettered, would do to themselves, other people, and the world would be mind-boggling and possibly fatal.
It's unfortunate many LEADERS are likewise irresponsible and ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 20, 2019:
@Castlepaloma Okay, sure, on a tribal level it might work, if organized/configured intelligently, and if insulated from society-at-large. I'd be curious to know the details, maybe even affiliate myself.
Anything I might look up?
As a larger 'macro' issue, however, it doesn't seem like something around which you could organize a huge country like the U.S.. You surely aren't suggesting THAT.
To successfully organize a small collective, it seems to me, it would take in itself a monumental effort to find and gather together specific types of people with common goals, purposes, political/ideological/social viewpoints.
Or are you saying that isn't necessary? Can anarchy itself be the organizing principle? Surely there's a need for 'police' of some sort, at the very least...or is everybody able to police themselves?
I'd need more details.
I’ve listened patiently for a few months trying to understand the dichotomy between Agnostics & ...
birdingnut comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Not much difference, really. It's just that agnostics admit they don't know, but they assume there probably isn't one.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Hold on!
I don't know, am quite sure 'god' is not an entity, but will be open to a 'god' by some other definition. Maybe a "collective superconsciousness," (or something).
To there's very few things I rule out.
birdingnut comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Not much difference, really. It's just that agnostics admit they don't know, but they assume there probably isn't one.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Hold on!
I don't know, am quite sure 'god' is not an entity, but will be open to a 'god' by some other definition. Maybe a "collective superconsciousness," (or something).
To there's very few things I rule out.
I’ve listened patiently for a few months trying to understand the dichotomy between Agnostics & ...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Joanne Crop circles have NOT been exposed as hoaxes. You just read an article or two about men with boards and string and looked away. They are still forming all over the world and cannot be explained away.
Edgar Cayce was a verified, proven psychic.
The pyramids could not have been built by ancient men with their limited technology and knowledge of the world, the stars, construction, etc.
Telepathy is a real thing.
Reincarnation has been more or less "proven" circumstantially.
You want to reject everything beyond your comprehension.
Anyway, I'm not saying any of this makes a god or gods necessary. I've no idea about that and never will.
It DOES make an open mind necessary, though.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Joanne Crop circles have NOT been exposed as hoaxes. You just read an article or two about men with boards and string and looked away. They are still forming all over the world and cannot be explained away.
Edgar Cayce was a verified, proven psychic.
The pyramids could not have been built by ancient men with their limited technology and knowledge of the world, the stars, construction, etc.
Telepathy is a real thing.
Reincarnation has been more or less "proven" circumstantially.
You want to reject everything beyond your comprehension.
Anyway, I'm not saying any of this makes a god or gods necessary. I've no idea about that and never will.
It DOES make an open mind necessary, though.
It takes more than an Atheist to over throw over obiedience authority of Religion.
MakeItGood comments on Dec 19, 2019:
This about the dumbest thing I've read.
Anarchy, the lacks of rules, strips freedoms away from those who are not lucky or strong enough to keep them. They are stripped away by those who lucked into the right resources or advantages.
Anarchy fundamental flaw is that it assumes that people are...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Communism doesn't assume everybody is good. That's ridiculous.
All it assumes is, collective action is better than every man for himself.
If anything, it's the OPPOSITE of anarchy.
MakeItGood comments on Dec 19, 2019:
This about the dumbest thing I've read.
Anarchy, the lacks of rules, strips freedoms away from those who are not lucky or strong enough to keep them. They are stripped away by those who lucked into the right resources or advantages.
Anarchy fundamental flaw is that it assumes that people are...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Communism doesn't assume everybody is good. That's ridiculous.
All it assumes is, collective action is better than every man for himself.
If anything, it's the OPPOSITE of anarchy.
I am bemused that people would talk so much about religion, mostly Christianity, on here.
Mofo1953 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
There are many christian trolls who are the culprits, and many "spiritualists" who want to sell their bullshit but few buy it, don't be bemused, be pissed at these idiots and call their bs strongly, perhaps in this way they will stop and leave.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Plus there are plenty of self-righteous atheists who don't seem to understand while some agnostics don't know if there is a god, they do have "spiritual" feelings they like to express.
These atheist creeps SHOULD respect those feelings as clearly non-religious but possibly, genuinely coming from a sincere and heartfelt place.
But some don't.
Unfortunate.
Mofo1953 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
There are many christian trolls who are the culprits, and many "spiritualists" who want to sell their bullshit but few buy it, don't be bemused, be pissed at these idiots and call their bs strongly, perhaps in this way they will stop and leave.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Plus there are plenty of self-righteous atheists who don't seem to understand while some agnostics don't know if there is a god, they do have "spiritual" feelings they like to express.
These atheist creeps SHOULD respect those feelings as clearly non-religious but possibly, genuinely coming from a sincere and heartfelt place.
But some don't.
Unfortunate.
"You shouldn't judge people!" I have often heard this from my Christian friends.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
"I hate the sin, not the sinner."
And they get to decide what the 'sin' is.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@DavidLaDeau And they get to decide what pisses off god.
So they can choose a religion--god--which thinks as they do, who is pissed off by the same things they are, and by proxy invoke that 'holy' name to bully other people into behaving the way they want.
Convenient.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
"I hate the sin, not the sinner."
And they get to decide what the 'sin' is.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@DavidLaDeau And they get to decide what pisses off god.
So they can choose a religion--god--which thinks as they do, who is pissed off by the same things they are, and by proxy invoke that 'holy' name to bully other people into behaving the way they want.
Convenient.
I’ve listened patiently for a few months trying to understand the dichotomy between Agnostics & ...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Joanne There are plenty of things which give me pause. How about crop circles? How about psychics like Edgar Cayce? Look at the pyramids, which are almost impossible to explain away; clearly the work of an advanced civilization/extraterrestrials...maybe THEY were god. And reincarnation--many case histories clearly suggest past lives.
There are MANY unexplainable phenomena which expose the limits of our understanding. Someday we may explain them. Someday we may explain 'god' in terms our minds can comprehend.
It's plausible other worlds have produced civilizations hundreds of thousands or even millions of years old. Who knows how far their consciousnesses have evolved--maybe into immortal, godlike creatures. It's possible.
So I'm not willing to limit my imagination or my conception of what is possible to what we know here and now in 2019 on planet Earth.
If YOU want to, be my guest.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Joanne There are plenty of things which give me pause. How about crop circles? How about psychics like Edgar Cayce? Look at the pyramids, which are almost impossible to explain away; clearly the work of an advanced civilization/extraterrestrials...maybe THEY were god. And reincarnation--many case histories clearly suggest past lives.
There are MANY unexplainable phenomena which expose the limits of our understanding. Someday we may explain them. Someday we may explain 'god' in terms our minds can comprehend.
It's plausible other worlds have produced civilizations hundreds of thousands or even millions of years old. Who knows how far their consciousnesses have evolved--maybe into immortal, godlike creatures. It's possible.
So I'm not willing to limit my imagination or my conception of what is possible to what we know here and now in 2019 on planet Earth.
If YOU want to, be my guest.
"You shouldn't judge people!" I have often heard this from my Christian friends.
AwarenessNow comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Judgment happens. Science shows that everyone judges.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/201610/why-is-it-impossible-not-judge-people It's kinda like lying. Social scientists have shown that everyone lies, but many people out there deny that they do so. So if ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Without lies, life would be unbearable.
AwarenessNow comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Judgment happens. Science shows that everyone judges.https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neuroscience-in-everyday-life/201610/why-is-it-impossible-not-judge-people It's kinda like lying. Social scientists have shown that everyone lies, but many people out there deny that they do so. So if ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
Without lies, life would be unbearable.
"You shouldn't judge people!" I have often heard this from my Christian friends.
Triphid comments on Dec 19, 2019:
I tend to think that one of the examples of irony would be what happened with 'Evangeloon' neighbor in mid-winter 2013.
He was erecting a structure made up of full length railway sleepers ( railways
ties in the U.S. I think) whilst wearing his usual footwear, i.e, soft and unprotective canvas ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
It was God's will, he'd likely tell you
Triphid comments on Dec 19, 2019:
I tend to think that one of the examples of irony would be what happened with 'Evangeloon' neighbor in mid-winter 2013.
He was erecting a structure made up of full length railway sleepers ( railways
ties in the U.S. I think) whilst wearing his usual footwear, i.e, soft and unprotective canvas ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
It was God's will, he'd likely tell you
I don’t want to offend anyone...
of-the-mountain comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Just rid this country of this mentally insane traitor trump who is destroying this country wholesale with direct support of these obstructionist republicans owned by the overtly wealthy and their corporations!!!
Time to remove these Fascist republican bought and sold politicians from all public ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@MissKathleen Be more like the British!
AND bring back the Fairness Doctrine; we are now living in an unconstitutional no man's (and woman's) land. Liberal voices have been all but banned from political media (Sean, Rush, et. al.).
(While I'm at it, will someone please tell the NFL to sever it's obnoxious ties to the military?)
of-the-mountain comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Just rid this country of this mentally insane traitor trump who is destroying this country wholesale with direct support of these obstructionist republicans owned by the overtly wealthy and their corporations!!!
Time to remove these Fascist republican bought and sold politicians from all public ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@MissKathleen Be more like the British!
AND bring back the Fairness Doctrine; we are now living in an unconstitutional no man's (and woman's) land. Liberal voices have been all but banned from political media (Sean, Rush, et. al.).
(While I'm at it, will someone please tell the NFL to sever it's obnoxious ties to the military?)
I don’t want to offend anyone...
mischl comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Impeachment will take too long and, I fear, turn out to be not very satisfying for us who want to save the republic. At the present time, the Senate is run by faithful believers in Trump. The Senate trial is likely to be no more than a dog and pony show. One possible benefit is that it will amplify ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Barnie2years To the contrary, they'll drag it out as long as possible, with, possibly, auxiliary investigations of Biden, Pelosi, whomever else he can think of to rake over the coals.
mischl comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Impeachment will take too long and, I fear, turn out to be not very satisfying for us who want to save the republic. At the present time, the Senate is run by faithful believers in Trump. The Senate trial is likely to be no more than a dog and pony show. One possible benefit is that it will amplify ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Barnie2years To the contrary, they'll drag it out as long as possible, with, possibly, auxiliary investigations of Biden, Pelosi, whomever else he can think of to rake over the coals.
I’ve listened patiently for a few months trying to understand the dichotomy between Agnostics & ...
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Joanne Same thing.
And I'm not saying you're WRONG.
It's that permanent uncertainty that drives believers--theist and atheist alike--up the wall. 'ChurchLess' mistakenly says, out of apparent exasperation, agnostics are "hedging our bets..."
Ha!
What 'bet' would THAT be, as if there are winners and losers!
Just saying that tells you everything you need to know about ChurchLess!
Depending on your point of view, my opinion is we ALL win and we ALL lose; it doesn't matter what anyone "thinks!"
Storm1752 comments on Dec 19, 2019:
As an agnostic I don't know if there's a god or not.
Atheists take a definite stand: no god!
That simple.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@Joanne Same thing.
And I'm not saying you're WRONG.
It's that permanent uncertainty that drives believers--theist and atheist alike--up the wall. 'ChurchLess' mistakenly says, out of apparent exasperation, agnostics are "hedging our bets..."
Ha!
What 'bet' would THAT be, as if there are winners and losers!
Just saying that tells you everything you need to know about ChurchLess!
Depending on your point of view, my opinion is we ALL win and we ALL lose; it doesn't matter what anyone "thinks!"
I am just beginning to understand how interesting this site could become.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Just the normal human desire to explain who we are, where we came from, and the meaning of it all.
Plain as the nose on your face.
Religion happened when someone somewhere wrote one explanation down and declared it THE explanation.
Why everybody else AGREED is another story.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@K9Kohle789 I read the Romans invented Christianity, not disaffected Jews!
Storm1752 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Just the normal human desire to explain who we are, where we came from, and the meaning of it all.
Plain as the nose on your face.
Religion happened when someone somewhere wrote one explanation down and declared it THE explanation.
Why everybody else AGREED is another story.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 19, 2019:
@K9Kohle789 I read the Romans invented Christianity, not disaffected Jews!
I am just beginning to understand how interesting this site could become.
PBuck0145 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Not all religions are cancerous. None are evidence based, but some are life affirming.
The most malignant, cancerous, death-worshiping "religion" is political Islam.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@AnneWimsey Maybe I AM a racist fool, but from everything I've read, seen, and heard, 'religious Islam' and 'political Islam' are one and the same thing.
The Koran is not only a religious screed, but also a political blueprint for EVERY aspect of a person's life, and for how society should be governed.
Sharia law is not a vague religious prescription, but a specific set of rules and regulations with detailed punishments for transgressors. It is THE Islamic law regardless
of whatever country a devotee lives.
Sort of the Old Testament on super steroids, with fangs and claws.
Wake up to reality.
PBuck0145 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
Not all religions are cancerous. None are evidence based, but some are life affirming.
The most malignant, cancerous, death-worshiping "religion" is political Islam.
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@AnneWimsey Maybe I AM a racist fool, but from everything I've read, seen, and heard, 'religious Islam' and 'political Islam' are one and the same thing.
The Koran is not only a religious screed, but also a political blueprint for EVERY aspect of a person's life, and for how society should be governed.
Sharia law is not a vague religious prescription, but a specific set of rules and regulations with detailed punishments for transgressors. It is THE Islamic law regardless
of whatever country a devotee lives.
Sort of the Old Testament on super steroids, with fangs and claws.
Wake up to reality.
I am just beginning to understand how interesting this site could become.
Shawno1972 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
You might not find too many more fresh thoughts on this. We've hashed it over so many times here that most folks are sort of bored of it now. Suffice it to say 90% or better of us seem to agree with you. So there's that.
Here's a thought that I started to flesh out in another thread: I think ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@Leontion Don't fret: I have no desire to follow or lead anyone.
Shawno1972 comments on Dec 18, 2019:
You might not find too many more fresh thoughts on this. We've hashed it over so many times here that most folks are sort of bored of it now. Suffice it to say 90% or better of us seem to agree with you. So there's that.
Here's a thought that I started to flesh out in another thread: I think ...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@Leontion Don't fret: I have no desire to follow or lead anyone.
How many here think of themselves as skeptical thinkers?
Storm1752 comments on Dec 17, 2019:
I think god is everywhere and everything. No amount of "evidence" is enough. Any amount is too much.
I come to my state of conciousness from all the experiences I've ever had, yet no specific experience caused me to think the way I do.
The brain makes things up as it goes. Experiences combine and...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@sweetcharlotte Thanks. I could have answered that a billion different ways, so take it for what it's worth!
Storm1752 comments on Dec 17, 2019:
I think god is everywhere and everything. No amount of "evidence" is enough. Any amount is too much.
I come to my state of conciousness from all the experiences I've ever had, yet no specific experience caused me to think the way I do.
The brain makes things up as it goes. Experiences combine and...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@sweetcharlotte Thanks. I could have answered that a billion different ways, so take it for what it's worth!
exile in happy valley: The Panarchist Solution to a World Divided
Storm1752 comments on Dec 17, 2019:
It's becoming increasingly irrelevant WHAT form of world government will eventually emerge.
Panarchy is just another label for a confederate system which may very well be a transitional compromise between the multi-state semi-anarchy we have now, and a completely unitarian one-world government.
...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@altschmerz I'm sure if I wanted to buy anything from anywhere in the world I could, finances permitting. In fact, I recently bought some exotic seeds (purported to increase brinpower) from somewhere in the Far East.
No problem.
As a proponent of free trade, I'm aghast when politicians drag us into trade wars. Just get out of the way!.
OR help tear remaining barriers down.
This would and probably WILL eventually render borders obsolete.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 17, 2019:
It's becoming increasingly irrelevant WHAT form of world government will eventually emerge.
Panarchy is just another label for a confederate system which may very well be a transitional compromise between the multi-state semi-anarchy we have now, and a completely unitarian one-world government.
...
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@altschmerz I'm sure if I wanted to buy anything from anywhere in the world I could, finances permitting. In fact, I recently bought some exotic seeds (purported to increase brinpower) from somewhere in the Far East.
No problem.
As a proponent of free trade, I'm aghast when politicians drag us into trade wars. Just get out of the way!.
OR help tear remaining barriers down.
This would and probably WILL eventually render borders obsolete.
Update: some sites for co-parenting - modamily.
Storm1752 comments on Dec 16, 2019:
Bizarre?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@Kassandra I can't grasp it. It's just me. I never wanted to get married and/or have kids, so I guess I'm not the one to comment.
But from an outsider looking in, I'd wonder, from a man's point of view, what's the upside of taking on all that responsibility? And we're talking about a 20-year commitment.
I'd doubt many men would be interested, because no romance, no stable home life, just neverending demands on time, resources, everything
Storm1752 comments on Dec 16, 2019:
Bizarre?
Storm1752 replies on Dec 18, 2019:
@Kassandra I can't grasp it. It's just me. I never wanted to get married and/or have kids, so I guess I'm not the one to comment.
But from an outsider looking in, I'd wonder, from a man's point of view, what's the upside of taking on all that responsibility? And we're talking about a 20-year commitment.
I'd doubt many men would be interested, because no romance, no stable home life, just neverending demands on time, resources, everything
Hey sexy beauties! I hope you're well and feeling sexy these days!
Storm1752 comments on Dec 15, 2019:
Not feeling that sexy, but I'm alive and that's what counts!
Storm1752 replies on Dec 15, 2019:
@Wildflower Oh I'm lurking about.
I shall strike when you least expect it!
Storm1752 comments on Dec 15, 2019:
Not feeling that sexy, but I'm alive and that's what counts!
Storm1752 replies on Dec 15, 2019:
@Wildflower Oh I'm lurking about.
I shall strike when you least expect it!
Photos
Details
Agnostic, Humanist, Secularist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Open to meeting women - BirthdayNovember 17
- Interested InFriends
- EnjoysMovies, Food, Science, Music, Books, Outdoors, Sports, Art, Love, Sex, Theater, Travel
- EducationGrad School
- Top tags#god #agnostic #atheism #republicans #world #religion #DonaldTrump #Atheist #vote #government #reason #hope #democrats #Jesus #truth #sex #religious #hell #belief #laws
- Level8 (69,690pts)
- Followers 21
- Fans 0
- Following 31
- Fav. Posts 2
- Referrals1
- Joined Jul 19th, 2018
- Last Visit 6+ months ago
Storm1752's Groups
Common Ground
56 members, Host
Topic of the day
92533 members
Just for Laughs
3273 members
Memes R Us
2992 members
FreeThinkers
2654 members
Quotes
2115 members
Introverts Unite!
1995 members
Out Of The Illusion
1705 members
Singles/Mingle/Chat
1655 members
50s +
1645 members
Music Fans
1281 members
Trump Pinata
1138 members
Human Sexuality: Everything About It
1016 members
Sexy Classy Pics
774 members
Sex, Drugs, Rock and Roll
640 members
Mental Health Support
634 members
Music of the Movies
501 members
Uncommon words and their meanings.
500 members
Movie Lovers
476 members
Florida Freethinkers
444 members
Science, Health & History Tidbits
417 members
CLASSIC ROCK RULES
389 members
Dating for Real People
369 members
Liberal/Progressive Party
301 members
P.A.T.C.H. People Against The Christian Hypocrites
293 members
Jokes and humor about religion
275 members
36 Questions
247 members
SapioSexuals
246 members
The Best of Late Night & News
204 members
Simple Thoughts
194 members
Non-nude sexy pics
191 members
Sun Moon Stars
150 members
Biden 2020
141 members
American Humanists Association
134 members
Dharma Café
133 members
EROTICA/EROTIC STORIES
122 members
L7new
103 members
Religious Naturalism
95 members
All Things Asia
83 members
Feminist Atheists
44 members
Ask Males ANYthing
37 members
Illogical atheists guide for ending Christianity
37 members
Origins of Heaven and Hell
33 members
Elon Musk
30 members
UAPs, UFOs, USOs and 1st Contact
29 members
Consortium of thoughts
20 members
Broken Hearts Club
18 members
Taboo Island Atlantis
15 members
Community Senate
386 members