One of my oldest friends, a college buddy/roomie is a planetary scientist. He discovered the furthest known contacted object in our solar system, untouched by thermal influence since the beginning, and therefore a treasure trove of information as to what happened at the beginning of the system. He predicted its shape using occultation, and has an understanding of space that boggles the mind. He was friends with Sagan.
Once, sitting with him and another (very religious) friend, I tried to ask him what his (limited human) understanding of the universe meant to him in terms of god or whatever. Heâs a quiet, thoughtful guy, and - in the milliseconds he paused - my religious friend jumped in and hijacked the convo. Iâll try again on another day, but I kinda think it was a moment thatâs passed.
Does the vastness of the universe say something about the non existence of a god? Or is it that we just are unable to comprehend something that would be that big compared to us?
Similarly, when you study biological functions, does the complexity of things like kidney function with its semipermeable membranes here but not there as urine gets made say something about a divine intervention that allowed something so microscopically detailed to exist, and therefore for us to exist?
I canât believe in an anthropomorphic god; that makes no sense. But is all of this vastness and complexity really random?
One of my oldest friends, a college buddy/roomie is a planetary scientist. He discovered the furthest known contacted object in our solar system, untouched by thermal influence since the beginning, and therefore a treasure trove of information as to what happened at the beginning of the system. He predicted its shape using occultation, and has an understanding of space that boggles the mind. He was friends with Sagan.
Once, sitting with him and another (very religious) friend, I tried to ask him what his (limited human) understanding of the universe meant to him in terms of god or whatever. Heâs a quiet, thoughtful guy, and - in the milliseconds he paused - my religious friend jumped in and hijacked the convo. Iâll try again on another day, but I kinda think it was a moment thatâs passed.
Does the vastness of the universe say something about the non existence of a god? Or is it that we just are unable to comprehend something that would be that big compared to us?
Similarly, when you study biological functions, does the complexity of things like kidney function with its semipermeable membranes here but not there as urine gets made say something about a divine intervention that allowed something so microscopically detailed to exist, and therefore for us to exist?
I canât believe in an anthropomorphic god; that makes no sense. But is all of this vastness and complexity really random?
Do atheists have any interests beyond the material world ?
Like arguing on the internet?
I consider that part of the material world.
I was thinking more in terms of the paranormal. Things that do manifest themselves without any known physical explanations. And outside of religious acceptance and explanations as well.
Or in other words, is the paranormal (and perhaps reincarnation) considered not real and therefore self delusional ? Or never mind. Maybe next year.
I feel loved and cared for as a human, not a professing atheist. I don't generally profess.
Atheists don't go knocking on doors to proselytize. We don't have revival meetings. I don't score any points by converting a believer, so honestly the subject never comes up.
Most of the people I know (outside of immediate family) are believers at least socially; I don't know what's in anyone's heart but mine so I can't tell if they believe what they profess. And since religions take credit for basic human morality I'd bet most of the people I know don't have any idea I'm an atheist. They probably assume I just go to a different church from them.
And I'm puzzled why you'd wonder if I have fulfilling relationships with believers. Why wouldn't I? Would you ask the same question of a Hindu, a Muslim, a neopagan?
And atheism (no need to capitalize) isn't a belief system, it's the absence of a belief system. I don't know any atheists that profess that gods can't possibly exist, we just haven't been convinced that they do. As for resolving the Sermon on the Mount with the Battle of Jericho...that's not my cross to bear. Believing contradictory things requires a religious mind and I don't have one.
Ask the average Christian to explain the trinity and you'll get a non-nonsensical word salad. This is not the realm of logic and reason, it's unashamedly the realm of magical thinking. I don't do magical thinking. And I don't care what kind of metaphorical terrarium other people keep their gods in. It's your god, house it as you like. If your god is offended by its kennel feel free to change the kennel, but you're more likely to change the god. And if history is any guide that god always seems right at home.
Personal- Do you have interesting if not fullfilling relationships or friendships with those who profess a seeking or spiritual kindred and do you as a professing Athiest feel equally loved and cared for?
I'm thinking you most definitely do. Existential- Does it mean to be an Athiest that there is no purpose in seeking proof of that which can't possibly exist, and is looked upon as faulty logic or reasoning? Scripture and dogma aside for a moment, as a battle with certainty of fortitude as opposed to a battle with passive belief, can the idea of a God of love coexist with a God of horrors? Have we evolved our individual choice to be one of putting God in a prison made of the mind of our anthromorphic if imbalanced understanding?
I feel loved and cared for as a human, not a professing atheist. I don't generally profess. Atheists don't go knocking on doors to proselytize. We don't have revival meetings. I don't score any points by converting a believer, so honestly the subject never comes up. Most of the people I know (outside of immediate family) are believers at least socially; I don't know what's in anyone's heart but mine so I can't tell if they believe what they profess. And since religions take credit for basic human morality I'd bet most of the people I know don't have any idea I'm an atheist. They probably assume I just go to a different church from them. And I'm puzzled why you'd wonder if I have fulfilling relationships with believers. Why wouldn't I? Would you ask the same question of a Hindu, a Muslim, a neopagan? And atheism (no need to capitalize) isn't a belief system, it's the absence of a belief system. I don't know any atheists that profess that gods can't possibly exist, we just haven't been convinced that they do. As for resolving the Sermon on the Mount with the Battle of Jericho...that's not my cross to bear. Believing contradictory things requires a religious mind and I don't have one. Ask the average Christian to explain the trinity and you'll get a non-nonsensical word salad. This is not the realm of logic and reason, it's unashamedly the realm of magical thinking. I don't do magical thinking. And I don't care what kind of metaphorical terrarium other people keep their gods in. It's your god, house it as you like. If your god is offended by its kennel feel free to change the kennel, but you're more likely to change the god. And if history is any guide that god always seems right at home.
Declare, exclaim profess, signify- Oh I love this reply so much!
I capitalized because I wasn't sure. My bad.
I did use "existential' for the second question.
Also, I used "God" within a commonly understood attribution as to a operative spiritual concept and context not so much for control or convenience.
I had a longer reply and lost it. Yes I would and have asked this of other folks. I'm interested in people and who they are as individuals. Where they are from. How they were raised. Belief or operative worldview in something greater than ourselves need not carry a prerequisite to be seeking reason and acceptance. Not meaning to be shifty or vague. Also, not a vain attempt to proselytize or convince anyone by my own words or actions.
Personal- Do you have interesting if not fullfilling relationships or friendships with those who profess a seeking or spiritual kindred and do you as a professing Athiest feel equally loved and cared for?
I'm thinking you most definitely do.
Existential- Does it mean to be an Athiest that there is no purpose in seeking proof of that which can't possibly exist, and is looked upon as faulty logic or reasoning? Scripture and dogma aside for a moment, as a battle with certainty of fortitude as opposed to a battle with passive belief, can the idea of a God of love coexist with a God of horrors? Have we evolved our individual choice to be one of putting God in a prison made of the mind of our anthromorphic if imbalanced understanding?
I feel loved and cared for as a human, not a professing atheist. I don't generally profess.
Atheists don't go knocking on doors to proselytize. We don't have revival meetings. I don't score any points by converting a believer, so honestly the subject never comes up.
Most of the people I know (outside of immediate family) are believers at least socially; I don't know what's in anyone's heart but mine so I can't tell if they believe what they profess. And since religions take credit for basic human morality I'd bet most of the people I know don't have any idea I'm an atheist. They probably assume I just go to a different church from them.
And I'm puzzled why you'd wonder if I have fulfilling relationships with believers. Why wouldn't I? Would you ask the same question of a Hindu, a Muslim, a neopagan?
And atheism (no need to capitalize) isn't a belief system, it's the absence of a belief system. I don't know any atheists that profess that gods can't possibly exist, we just haven't been convinced that they do. As for resolving the Sermon on the Mount with the Battle of Jericho...that's not my cross to bear. Believing contradictory things requires a religious mind and I don't have one.
Ask the average Christian to explain the trinity and you'll get a non-nonsensical word salad. This is not the realm of logic and reason, it's unashamedly the realm of magical thinking. I don't do magical thinking. And I don't care what kind of metaphorical terrarium other people keep their gods in. It's your god, house it as you like. If your god is offended by its kennel feel free to change the kennel, but you're more likely to change the god. And if history is any guide that god always seems right at home.
Personal- Do you have interesting if not fullfilling relationships or friendships with those who profess a seeking or spiritual kindred and do you as a professing Athiest feel equally loved and cared for?
I'm thinking you most definitely do.
Existential- Does it mean to be an Athiest that there is no purpose in seeking proof of that which can't possibly exist, and is looked upon as faulty logic or reasoning? Scripture and dogma aside for a moment, as a battle with certainty of fortitude as opposed to a battle with passive belief, can the idea of a God of love coexist with a God of horrors? Have we evolved our individual choice to be one of putting God in a prison made of the mind of our anthromorphic if imbalanced understanding?
Personal- Do you have interesting if not fullfilling relationships or friendships with those who profess a seeking or spiritual kindred and do you as a professing Athiest feel equally loved and cared for?
I'm thinking you most definitely do.
Existential- Does it mean to be an Athiest that there is no purpose in seeking proof of that which can't possibly exist, and is looked upon as faulty logic or reasoning? Scripture and dogma aside for a moment, as a battle with certainty of fortitude as opposed to a battle with passive belief, can the idea of a God of love coexist with a God of horrors? Have we evolved our individual choice to be one of putting God in a prison made of the mind of our anthromorphic if imbalanced understanding?
I listened to this on loop constantly when I went through all my chemo and transplant all those years ago. I had a roommate complain once. Today is the 14th anniversary of my stem cell infusion fwiw. I actually have a copy in my hand right now. For some reason it surfaced on the coffee table a month or two ago during some cleaning. Might be time to dust if off and hit the reset button. Can't hurt none, that's for sure.
.
Well, well. You too are full of surprises. These are probably some of the most calming, guided sounds for healing meditation out there.
Nicola Tesla understood some profound things some of his contemporaries didn't, but he didn't understand them near as well as his modern fans think. While he was putting on lightening shows to impress investors the theory behind what he was doing had been developed fifty years earlier. But no one has built a cult around James Clerk Maxwell. Maxwell's work doesn't need a cult built around it to be preserved as wisdom to be passed on, because we can prove that work was a better approximation of the truth than anything done before. It doesn't need to be believed in to be true. And as we learn even more we'll eventually discard it for a deeper understanding. And Maxwell wouldn't gather a lightning bolt to smite the apostates that do that. He'd approve.
Please refrain from assuming I have fallen into the demi-godism of Tesla just because he is mentioned.
I simply agree with his statement regarding 'the secrets of the Universe.'
It parallels Einstein and many others regarding atomic particles and quantum physics and fits well into my spiritual theories. Tesla's obsession with electricity is beside the point.
I listened to this on loop constantly when I went through all my chemo and transplant all those years ago. I had a roommate complain once. Today is the 14th anniversary of my stem cell infusion fwiw. I actually have a copy in my hand right now. For some reason it surfaced on the coffee table a month or two ago during some cleaning. Might be time to dust if off and hit the reset button. Can't hurt none, that's for sure.
Nicola Tesla understood some profound things some of his contemporaries didn't, but he didn't understand them near as well as his modern fans think. While he was putting on lightening shows to impress investors the theory behind what he was doing had been developed fifty years earlier. But no one has built a cult around James Clerk Maxwell.
Maxwell's work doesn't need a cult built around it to be preserved as wisdom to be passed on, because we can prove that work was a better approximation of the truth than anything done before. It doesn't need to be believed in to be true. And as we learn even more we'll eventually discard it for a deeper understanding.
And Maxwell wouldn't gather a lightning bolt to smite the apostates that do that. He'd approve.
Much of your post is intriguing and provocative, but please refrain from assuming I have fallen into the demi-godism of Tesla just because he is mentioned. I simply agree with his statement regarding 'the secrets of the Universe.'
It parallels Einstein and many others regarding atomic particles and quantum physics and fits well into my spiritual theories. Tesla's obsession with electricity is beside the point.
As a recovering Catholic, rejecting Deities is simple. Not so easy is to dismiss certain practices of focusing the mind, intention, meditation that often brings peace and healing to people. If one excepts the 'belief' in atoms (Have YOU personally looked through an Electron Microscope?) most of us just take it for granted that they exist without ever having seen them. Humans throughout history have witnessed how the focus of a disciplined mind can manifest extraordinary things.
Imho, this quote from Nikola Tesla, says it best:
If you want to Understand the Secrets of the Universe; think in terms of Energy, Frequency and Vibration.
You can see the world thru many lenses. The universe is far too complex for us to understand in its entirety so we create simplified models. We've done this since the dawn of time. This is true at every level of human understanding, from food spoiling to volcanoes erupting to the motion of those points of light in the sky to what happens after we die.
Our models get better and better as we learn more, understand more measure better. They are never complete, but we get closer and closer to understanding the true nature of the universe. Eventually we come to understand that ancient ways of seeing the universe and our place in it were mere analogies, useful up to a point but they break down when we try t understand things in finer detail.
There are more than 4 elements, but even these are made of tinier particles yet, and those are made up of further tiny particles. The earth shakes because of the motions of tectonic plates, not the motion of a turtle carrying the earth on its back. There is no angry god sleeping in a volcano and it will erupt (or not) regardless of who we throw in. The sensations we feel are due to electrical impulses transmitted thru nerves, not the motion of chi.
We're just beginning to probe the mysteries of consciousness, and the rules and understandings of the ancients, useful as they might have been, long ago reached their limit to explain what we see now.
And yes, I've used an electron microscope. You can't look "through" one; the images they form aren't made from light we can see but from a few photons at a time striking a detector, which reveals an image when its signals are processed correctly. Even that couldn't resolve anything as small as an individual atom. We have other tools that can, but atoms don't need us to see them or believe in them to exist.
They were understood to exist because of the way matter behaves long before we could actually see them. Seeing them confirmed what we had already theorized about them. And we may still have it wrong, but everything we can see and measure jibes with our understanding of them. If we see things that understanding can't explain we have to alter—deepen—our understanding. We can't say we've proved we understand atoms, only that we haven't been able to disprove what we understand about them. It's a work in progress. Moral reasoning should be too.
We still labor under strictures created by illiterate iron-age tribesmen who created analogies involving gods and their rules to understand the universe and our place in it. As immutable and timeless as they are supposed to be, those rules have evolved as our understanding of our nature and our duties to one another has evolved.
Don't believe me? When was the last time you sold anyone into slavery? Sacrificed a goat to appease an angry god? Eaten shellfish? Suffered a witch to live lately? And how about those gay people? It's all in the book, but even the very devout ignore those parts. OK, there are still abstainers from shellfish and gay people get tossed off the roofs of tall buildings to this day, but for the most part y'all have ditched some of the worst aspects of your religions. Because we know better now.
Nicola Tesla understood some profound things some of his contemporaries didn't, but he didn't understand them near as well as his modern fans think. While he was putting on lightening shows to impress investors the theory behind what he was doing had been developed fifty years earlier. But no one has built a cult around James Clerk Maxwell.
Maxwell's work doesn't need a cult built around it to be preserved as wisdom to be passed on, because we can prove that work was a better approximation of the truth than anything done before. It doesn't need to be believed in to be true. And as we learn even more we'll eventually discard it for a deeper understanding.
And Maxwell wouldn't gather a lightning bolt to smite the apostates that do that. He'd approve.
I agree that if God exists (and to me he does) he's not "sitting on a park bench..." on top of the clouds with a long white beard. Instead, he must be everywhere, in every thing and spec. - And yes, in the form of energy and vibration, and perhaps consciousness. As a wise man said to me, if you want to talk about God, you have to remain silent.
