Something For The Dude : Limited Vs Complete Understanding

[duderonomy]

I've been so busy and I've been away so long I think I might be missing some of the narrative. I have read through everything posted since I was here last.

 

One:   Josh, it's not sweet cheeks dammit, it's Sweet Cheeks. Get it right or it's Mr. Sweet Cheeks to you. Also, I appreciate not only your POV, but also your sense of humor.

 

Two:  BAA, how is it you think your scientific view is superior to Pantheory's scientific view? If none of us knows for sure how the universe began, or what is really inside the hollow Moon (  ), then how is it that your science is better than his science? Are you sure the difference isn't the equivalent of a Catholic vs. Protestant thing, and do you have solid evidence of the actual scientific truth?

 

Three:  Is there evidence that the earth is not standing still with everything revolving around it?  Not conjecture, not common sense, not assumed reality...I mean evidence.

 

Four: Is there evidence that the earth is not special in the universe as the only planet that harbors life (other than "Heaven") as the major religions claim?  I admit this is a dumb question.

 

Five:  Did Copernicus offer a standard model or an alternative model?

 

Ugh. You guys know me...I'm not trolling and I'm more on your 'side' than any other, but there are things that must be answered and not assumed, if you catch my drift.  I can't wait for the days when I can get back to posting dang near every day.  

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Duderonomy,

 

I'm sorry, but if you look at my last reply to you, you'll see that I asked you some questions.  You seem to have overlooked answering them.  Therefore I would be obliged if you answer them.

 

Duderonomy,

I disagree with Pantheory because I consider him a risk to vulnerable members.

I disagree with him because he deliberately misrepresents mainstream science.  

 

Now I have some questions for you.  

Since I have the time, the knowledge and the motivation to shield the vulnerable from his influence, do you think I should do so?

If so, why?

If not, why?

 

I'm in the process of preparing answers for your latest questions and will post them asap.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

I've been so busy and I've been away so long I think I might be missing some of the narrative. I have read through everything posted since I was here last.

 

One:   Josh, it's not sweet cheeks dammit, it's Sweet Cheeks. Get it right or it's Mr. Sweet Cheeks to you. Also, I appreciate not only your POV, but also your sense of humor.

 

Two:  BAA, how is it you think your scientific view is superior to Pantheory's scientific view? If none of us knows for sure how the universe began, or what is really inside the hollow Moon (  ), then how is it that your science is better than his science? Are you sure the difference isn't the equivalent of a Catholic vs. Protestant thing, and do you have solid evidence of the actual scientific truth?

 

Three:  Is there evidence that the earth is not standing still with everything revolving around it?  Not conjecture, not common sense, not assumed reality...I mean evidence.

 

Four: Is there evidence that the earth is not special in the universe as the only planet that harbors life (other than "Heaven") as the major religions claim?  I admit this is a dumb question.

 

Five:  Did Copernicus offer a standard model or an alternative model?

 

Ugh. You guys know me...I'm not trolling and I'm more on your 'side' than any other, but there are things that must be answered and not assumed, if you catch my drift.  I can't wait for the days when I can get back to posting dang near every day.  

 

 

 

I appreciate your out of the box way of approaching issues. I do believe that these questions ought to be raised as often as they come to mind. 

 

As per Copernicus, he's an example of an alternative model doing what it takes to get in there and change the Standard Model of the time. That's one major difference between someone like Copernicus and Pantheory. The model has to win out on it's ability to better describe Reality, Mr. Sweet Cheeks. And Pantheory and any number of other competing alternative models have not accomplished what Copernicus had. Potentially some one could change point particle physics in major ways. I've done extensive reading on Milo Wolff and his wave based electron models. They change the way in which red shift is interpreted. Inflationary theory goes out the window with all of that. I like to be aware of the playing field. I've self educated myself on what I think could be potential game changers for physics and cosmology. But I've learned not to put too much credit on any of it. There's a process that must take place before we can feel comfortable with a major game changer in terms of describing Reality. 

 

But to your point, yes, it's possible that our current descriptions of Reality could change in significant ways if certain discoveries are made. And in that event, our current descriptions of Reality would be subject to change. So we hadn't ought to cling too closely or get too attached to theoretical physics and cosmology, you are correct. It's best to remain fluid in that way. And ex-christians ought to be aware of that, IMO. If your purpose is to voice that opinion, I'm on board with that. 

 

But I still feel that what BAA is doing is for the best. We can't just let any Tom, Dick and Harry run around causing doubt about the Standard Model without significant and compelling reason for doing so. Especially not simply because "it's possible" that we currently have it all wrong. There has to be a certain discipline applied or else all variety of fantasy would run wild through society in the name of Science. And that discipline is what BAA speaks of. I'm on board with BAA as well, even though I share your views on the underlying uncertainty involved in the current Standard Model and the importance of not becoming too attached. 

[bornagainathiest]

 

.

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

 

 

I appreciate your out of the box way of approaching issues. I do believe that these questions ought to be raised as often as they come to mind. 

 

As per Copernicus, he's an example of an alternative model doing what it takes to get in there and change the Standard Model of the time. That's one major difference between someone like Copernicus and Pantheory. The model has to win out on it's ability to better describe Reality, Mr. Sweet Cheeks. And Pantheory and any number of other competing alternative models have not accomplished what Copernicus had. Potentially some one could change point particle physics in major ways. I've done extensive reading on Milo Wolff and his wave based electron models. They change the way in which red shift is interpreted. Inflationary theory goes out the window with all of that. I like to be aware of the playing field. I've self educated myself on what I think could be potential game changers for physics and cosmology. But I've learned not to put too much credit on any of it. There's a process that must take place before we can feel comfortable with a major game changer in terms of describing Reality. 

 

But to your point, yes, it's possible that our current descriptions of Reality could change in significant ways if certain discoveries are made. And in that event, our current descriptions of Reality would be subject to change. So we hadn't ought to cling too closely or get too attached to theoretical physics and cosmology, you are correct. It's best to remain fluid in that way. And ex-christians ought to be aware of that, IMO. If your purpose is to voice that opinion, I'm on board with that. 

 

But I still feel that what BAA is doing is for the best. We can't just let any Tom, Dick and Harry run around causing doubt about the Standard Model without significant and compelling reason for doing so. Especially not simply because "it's possible" that we currently have it all wrong. There has to be a certain discipline applied or else all variety of fantasy would run wild through society in the name of Science. And that discipline is what BAA speaks of. I'm on board with BAA as well, even though I share your views on the underlying uncertainty involved in the current Standard Model and the importance of not becoming too attached. 

 

Ok, I'm not trying to be obstinate here, but who determines what the "Standard Model" is?  
Do you know that NASA can launch to anywhere in the known universe basing their science on the earth standing still and the calculations would be the same?

 

Do we really know what happened fourteen and a half million years ago? Have we seen that far back? Do we know that the speed of light is a constant?  It may be now, but can we be sure it was then?  What if the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force and gravity were formed much later than science assumes? What if, for example, the earth we live on was without form in the beginning (of the story of earth), and void because there was no life here yet?

 

You said;  "We can't just let any Tom, Dick and Harry run around causing doubt about the Standard Model without significant and compelling reason for doing so. Especially not simply because "it's possible" that we currently have it all wrong."  

 

Fricking Popes, fricking Protestants, fricking Copernicus! We must defend the Standard Model! Prove us wrong! We will not accept any other argument unless it provides better guesswork than we have!

 

 

[duderonomy]

 

 

Ok Duderonomy,

 

I now have my answers to your questions.  

 

But instead of posting them right now, I've decided to wait until you've replied to mine, above.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Vulnerable members, BAA? Who made you the gatekeeper?

 

What is your motivation to "shield the vulnerable"?

 

BAA, I think you should lobby for your point of view like we all do here (and again, I'm kind of on your side although you wouldn't know it much from my arguments), but when it comes to evidence we need evidence. Not 'scientific studies', not 'evidence suggests', not grant money fueled results, not "I know this is true and I shall shield all others from the dark Untruth, even though my understanding is limited and not complete".

[bornagainathiest]

.

[bornagainathiest]

...or we can do things in this thread a different way?

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Ok, I'm not trying to be obstinate here, but who determines what the "Standard Model" is?  
Do you know that NASA can launch to anywhere in the known universe basing their science on the earth standing still and the calculations would be the same?

 

Do we really know what happened fourteen and a half million years ago? Have we seen that far back? Do we know that the speed of light is a constant?  It may be now, but can we be sure it was then?  What if the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force and gravity were formed much later than science assumes? What if, for example, the earth we live on was without form in the beginning (of the story of earth), and void because there was no life here yet?

 

You said;  "We can't just let any Tom, Dick and Harry run around causing doubt about the Standard Model without significant and compelling reason for doing so. Especially not simply because "it's possible" that we currently have it all wrong."  

 

Fricking Popes, fricking Protestants, fricking Copernicus! We must defend the Standard Model! Prove us wrong! We will not accept any other argument unless it provides better guesswork than we have!

 

 

 

How else would you do it? 

 

Unless you can show error in the best efforts of human guess work, and provide an alternative that corrects the errors, why would you or any one else accept it as a much better frame work of guessing than the previous frame work of guessing, which, had just been proven errant and therefore needs correction and adjustment to simply work out? 

 

That's Copernicus. We're talking about guess work getting us closer to figuring out what's going on. With time figuring out more and more. 

 

How could the earth have been without form? Finite objects necessarily have form, any finite object. If any aspect of the future earth had any physical and finite existence, then it necessarily had form. A dust cloud of form becoming a spherical form planet and at no point being formless at any step or stage along the way. Ancient mythological writers apparently didn't understand that fact of physical, finite existence. And further, void of life doesn't mean void. There was always something. Which brings us to the next point, there's no creation ex nihilo. Everything that exists must have come from something else that existed previously. The bible doesn't gel by any stretch of the imagination. There's literally no apologetic angle which can claim that maybe the bible had it right.

 

The other issue is that you can't just pick and choose a word or sentence here or there out of the bible and claim that for all we know they could have been right. It doesn't work that way. The bible offers a complete cosmological framework which was common to the near east of time and place. It's a flat, circular or round disk geocentric earth. The universe is multi-layered into 7 heavens. Inhabiting these heavens are supernatural beings. Souls, as a matter of fact, journey through these 7 heavens down to earth and back according to esoteric lore. Paul, gets caught up into these heavens. When we're talking about the earth in the center of the universe according to the bible, the claim is that earth is in the center of this ancient multi-layered universe of 7 heavens and flat disc earth. 

 

Science obviously has shown that that's not the case. The earth is not in the center of a 7 level universe inhabited with supernatural beings with souls and angels descending and ascending, nor is it a flat round circular disc. Whether or not the earth is in the center of the actual universe is completely beside the point. That would in no way means that the bible had it right. You'd have to show that the entire cosmology of the bible taken as a whole is right. And any one is welcome to try, but they'll be hard pressed to achieve it. 

 

We simply look out, observe, take pictures, and know that the cosmology of the bible is completely incorrect through and through. Regardless of the position of the earth in the actual observable universe....

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Vulnerable members, BAA? Who made you the gatekeeper?

 

What is your motivation to "shield the vulnerable"?

 

BAA, I think you should lobby for your point of view like we all do here (and again, I'm kind of on your side although you wouldn't know it much from my arguments), but when it comes to evidence we need evidence. Not 'scientific studies', not 'evidence suggests', not grant money fueled results, not "I know this is true and I shall shield all others from the dark Untruth, even though my understanding is limited and not complete".

 

I have answers to these questions Duderonomy.

 

Would you like to hear them?

 

 

[duderonomy]

 

 

I have answers to these questions Duderonomy.

 

Would you like to hear them?

 

 

 

Sure if you want. Otherwise, you may consider my questions to be rhetorical.

 

What's with the post with everything struck through, and the others where you must have posted something and then erased it leaving just a period because the forum software wouldn't let you erase it altogether nor leave it blank? 

 

 

[duderonomy]

 

 

How else would you do it? 

 

Unless you can show error in the best efforts of human guess work, and provide an alternative that corrects the errors, why would you or any one else accept it as a much better frame work of guessing than the previous frame work of guessing, which, had just been proven errant and therefore needs correction and adjustment to simply work out?  Thank you for helping me make my point about guesswork. How does one know where the errors are if it's guesswork? Can one framework of guessing prove another framework of guessing wrong? 

We know what works and what doesn't work, and sometimes we know why and how, but outside of that we know very little about what makes the why and how work.  

Plus, Josh, I just confused myself, so I'll leave it and move on. 

 

That's Copernicus. We're talking about guess work getting us closer to figuring out what's going on. With time figuring out more and more. 

 

How could the earth have been without form? Finite objects necessarily have form, any finite object. If any aspect of the future earth had any physical and finite existence, then it necessarily had form. A dust cloud of form becoming a spherical form planet and at no point being formless at any step or stage along the way. Ancient mythological writers apparently didn't understand that fact of physical, finite existence. And further, void of life doesn't mean void. There was always something. Which brings us to the next point, there's no creation ex nihilo. Everything that exists must have come from something else that existed previously. The bible doesn't gel by any stretch of the imagination. There's literally no apologetic angle which can claim that maybe the bible had it right.

In your view then the earth always had form and will always have form, from the time of the Big Bang (and even before that), until now, and even in the future when it is burned and absorbed by the sun, and even after that?

Ok, but maybe the Bible was talking about the pale blue dot that existed when the Bible was written and that still exists today. In other words, 'in the beginning' the earth was without the form we have always known and that still exists. Is that possible? I mean, is it possible that it was written for the people that would read it, and not as a scientific tome?

 

"Void of life doesn't mean void".  If you mean life as we know it, I'll give you that one.

 

Now to the next part of your paragraph...that there is no creation ex-nihilo. That's what the Bible says. It says there was always something. It posits that the something was God. What do you say that the something was, recycled pop cans? A pregnant Multiverse? Not to joke too much, but I know for sure as much as you or anyone else knows for sure.

"Everything that exists must have come from something else that existed previously", you said.  It seems that science and 'religion' are at an impasse here, wouldn't you agree?  

 

 

The other issue is that you can't just pick and choose a word or sentence here or there out of the bible and claim that for all we know they could have been right. It doesn't work that way. The bible offers a complete cosmological framework which was common to the near east of time and place. It's a flat, circular or round disk geocentric earth. The universe is multi-layered into 7 heavens. Inhabiting these heavens are supernatural beings. Souls, as a matter of fact, journey through these 7 heavens down to earth and back according to esoteric lore. Paul, gets caught up into these heavens. When we're talking about the earth in the center of the universe according to the bible, the claim is that earth is in the center of this ancient multi-layered universe of 7 heavens and flat disc earth. 

We must have had different Bible teachers, but ok.

 

Science obviously has shown that that's not the case. The earth is not in the center of a 7 level universe inhabited with supernatural beings with souls and angels descending and ascending, nor is it a flat round circular disc. Whether or not the earth is in the center of the actual universe is completely beside the point. That would in no way means that the bible had it right. You'd have to show that the entire cosmology of the bible taken as a whole is right. And any one is welcome to try, but they'll be hard pressed to achieve it. 

Same as above about Bible teachers.

 

We simply look out, observe, take pictures, and know that the cosmology of the bible is completely incorrect through and through. Regardless of the position of the earth in the actual observable universe....

Maybe. We've been to the moon. We have robots on Mars. We just recently had one of our older spacecraft leave the solar system for the very first time.  That's amazing, but we think we know all about the universe, or universes, and creation, and life and meaning and on and on and on...

 

 

 

Josh, this thread could go off in a lot of different directions, some of which may not even belong in this sub-forum, IMHO.  

In a way though, it still agrees with the OP of "Limited Vs. Complete Understanding", wouldn't you agree?

[Joshpantera]

How else would you do it? 

 

Unless you can show error in the best efforts of human guess work, and provide an alternative that corrects the errors, why would you or any one else accept it as a much better frame work of guessing than the previous frame work of guessing, which, had just been proven errant and therefore needs correction and adjustment to simply work out?  Thank you for helping me make my point about guesswork. How does one know where the errors are if it's guesswork? Can one framework of guessing prove another framework of guessing wrong? 

We know what works and what doesn't work, and sometimes we know why and how, but outside of that we know very little about what makes the why and how work.  

Plus, Josh, I just confused myself, so I'll leave it and move on.

 

Yes, you seem confused. We're talking about figuring out reality. Over time we figure out more and more about it. When we realize that we'd had something wrong, we need to correct it. And we do correct it. That's how we come to a standard model. And what alternative thinkers are up against is the ability to show the errors in the current model and also provide a correction. Simply put, that's the main different between the standard model and alternative assertions. 

 

In your view then the earth always had form and will always have form, from the time of the Big Bang (and even before that), until now, and even in the future when it is burned and absorbed by the sun, and even after that?

Ok, but maybe the Bible was talking about the pale blue dot that existed when the Bible was written and that still exists today. In other words, 'in the beginning' the earth was without the form we have always known and that still exists. Is that possible? I mean, is it possible that it was written for the people that would read it, and not as a scientific tome?

 

This is where a lot of your confusion has stemmed from. Not understanding that the bronze age cosmology reflected in the bible WAS the only scientific tome of it's time. The priests being the only astronomers. It's the standard model of existence for time and place. There was no religious view separate from a scientific view. It's a religious-scientific view. And this religious-scientific view does not accurately describe reality in any substantial way. So you have to take the ancient cosmological model as a whole when trying to suggest that "for all we know they had it right." And more importantly, you have to understand what the ancient cosmological model even consisted of in the first place. 

 

Now to the next part of your paragraph...that there is no creation ex-nihilo. That's what the Bible says. It says there was always something. It posits that the something was God. What do you say that the something was, recycled pop cans? A pregnant Multiverse? Not to joke too much, but I know for sure as much as you or anyone else knows for sure.

"Everything that exists must have come from something else that existed previously", you said.  It seems that science and 'religion' are at an impasse here, wouldn't you agree?  

 

The cosmology of the bible is a creation ex nihilo, regardless of the eternal aspect of the god(s). Remember, it was polytheistic and the Elohim were the immortal gods something like in Greek Mythology. In the beginning the Gods created the heavens and earth. These heavens were the universe. The claim is that the universe had a beginning and that it's layered into "heavens." We know through academia what the cosmology consisted of. 7 layers of universe known as the 7 heavens. That cosmology still held as of the time Paul was writing. It was a near eastern model that many cultures subscribed to, including, apparently, the Jews. So while the gods always existed, the universe apparently did not. So that's why there's a doctrine of creation ex nihilo. 

 

When I explained more of the detail that went into this old bronze age cosmology that the bible writers made use of, including the esoteric traditions that describe the journey of the human soul through the seven planetary spheres, which is over laid against the 7 heavens cosmology, your response was one of a complete loss in terms of understanding this aspect of the old cosmology. 

 

We must have had different Bible teachers, but ok.

 

There's another point of confusion you have going on here. Because you don't understand the cosmology described in the bible you've not understood how and why it makes no difference what so ever if the earth is in the center of the known universe, or any number of other issues raised in the thread thus far. This is where we can narrow it down and get to the meat of the matter. Obviously bible teachers don't recognize the geocentric earth and the 7 layered heavens cosmology. They're generations and generations into evolved apologetic's that dishonestly seek to claim that the bible had it right from the beginning. Many of these dishonest sources will even take references about the earth as a circle, because it was a flat circular disk, and then try claiming that the bible knew that the earth was round all along over a statement of the circle of the earth. I've seen that passed around on facebook. And it's terribly dishonest and manipulative. The circular flat disc earth is not the spherical earth what we know of now. So what we can take from this is that some effort is required on the part of the ex christian to find out what the bible's cosmology is actually talking about, casting aside apologetic and dishonest claims from run of the mill bible teachers.

 

A good source is here: 

 

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/genesis-1-and-creationism/

 

I do agree that we're on topic here. Because it's this Genesis stuff which has led to your critique of modern science and the issues of limited and complete understanding that go along with it.

 

What I've been saying is that the bible and religion is off the table. It doesn't even weigh in when it comes to guessing. People can guess anything. But if they've demonstrably guessed wrong, we can cross it out and move on. That's where we're at now. The bible and all mythology is out in terms of guessing reality correctly. It's all demonstrably wrong, over and over, and over again.

 

That leaves us only with modern science for any hope of guessing right. That's my position and it's a strong one. That's where truth seeking has led me over the last 25 years since deconverting. I've been stead fast about seeking truths - trying to establish what can be reasonably claimed and what can not. And it's always subject to change, which can then bring more growth to the equation. But I've found that over time some truths only get firmer and firmer as people try to contest them. One of those truths is that we only have science for any way of figuring out reality. We also have meditation, but without meditation in alliance with science we really don't have much of anything. So as I see it, science is necessary for truth seeking whether you're spiritual or otherwise. 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Sure if you want. Otherwise, you may consider my questions to be rhetorical.

 

What's with the post with everything struck through, and the others where you must have posted something and then erased it leaving just a period because the forum software wouldn't let you erase it altogether nor leave it blank? 

 

 

 

Well, I was insisting that you answer my questions before I answered your new ones.  But that's not a very helpful, is it?  Hence the backtracking. 

.

.

.

Two:  BAA, how is it you think your scientific view is superior to Pantheory's scientific view?

 

Because mainstream science is used by many millions of scientists around the world, whereas Pantheory's is not.  That which is historically known to work and which is used by millions is, by definition, superior to that which doesn't.   Btw, this scientific view isn't mine.  I don't own it.  I simply subscribe to it on the basis of it's results.

 

 If none of us knows for sure how the universe began, or what is really inside the hollow Moon (  ), then how is it that your science is better than his science? 

 

Same answer as above.

The confirmed predictions of mainstream cosmology are indicators that it works.  If you accept that proof is not possible then you have but one option left - accept or reject the evidence.  However, if you reject the evidence, you cannot then say that you reject it because it hasn't been proven.  Likewise, if you ask for science to show or demonstrate something, having excluding proof, this showing or demonstrating must be done by evidence.  In this thread, proof is history.  So all we have to go on is evidence.  Do we accept the evidence?  If not, why not?

 

Are you sure the difference isn't the equivalent of a Catholic vs. Protestant thing, and do you have solid evidence of the actual scientific truth?

 

Yes, I'm sure.

Catholics and Protestants disagree over religious and spiritual matters.  Such things have no testable and measurable, real-world answers and they have no solutions that work.  Whereas science proceeds by testing and measuring and produces real-world answers and solutions that are demonstrated to work.  We all know this because we use what science delivers every hour of the day.  We are using them now, to read these words.

 

Since you and I are agreed that there is no such thing as proof (100% certainty) in science, we'll now have to come to another agreement as to what the words, 'actual scientific truth' mean.  Please feel free to kick things off with your definition.

 

 

Three:  Is there evidence that the earth is not standing still with everything revolving around it?  Not conjecture, not common sense, not assumed reality...I mean evidence.

 

Yes, there is.  This... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.07178.pdf

I first presented this to you in late February.  You replied that you'd take the time to look it over and then qualified that by saying that you didn't think that this evidence would alter your argument.  If that's so and the evidence won't change your mind or alter your position, then I believe I have the right to ask you two associated questions.

 

First, if the evidence won't change your mind, why are you still asking for the evidence?

Second, since we agree that science can't deliver proof (100% certainty) and can only present evidence, please state what kind of evidence would be good enough to change your mind and persuade you.

 

Four: Is there evidence that the earth is not special in the universe as the only planet that harbors life (other than "Heaven") as the major religions claim?  I admit this is a dumb question.

 

Yes, I'm afraid this is a dumb question.

If life had been discovered anywhere else in the universe this would be major news and we would all have heard about it.  

 

 Five:  Did Copernicus offer a standard model or an alternative model?

 

Neither.

His model was demonstrably superior to the one it superseded because it agreed with the visible evidence of the motion of the planets.  That which works must be factual and real.  

[bornagainathiest]

 

Vulnerable members, BAA? Who made you the gatekeeper?

 

What is your motivation to "shield the vulnerable"?

 

The answers can be found in this mission statement of this site, Duderonomy.

 

Ex-C is a self-help group of people who have successfully exited religion and who willingly offer their experiences, expertise and talents to help others do the same. So, if someone has a question about Mosaic Law, then Centauri can help.  If it's about ancient history and religion, then Ravenstar has the necessary skills.  And so on. Ficino and Disillusioned can help with theological, philosophy and doctrinal matters.  The RedneckProf can tackle genetics and evolution.  RogueScholar, quantum physics and chemistry.  Bhim, astrophysics.  Josh has certain areas of knowledge and I can help with astronomy.

 

Each of us freely offers our particular knowledge and expertise to help those who need it.

This is my motivation to help the damaged and vulnerable people who come here looking for and expecting help.  And they are hurt, hurting and vulnerable, my friend.  You can get an idea of just how badly Christianity has hurt them by reading their testimonies.  Margee will also tell you (if you ask her) just how badly they need our help.  Lastly, I cannot share this information with you (because it's strictly confidential) but from time to time, have you noticed that other members post messages saying that they can't PM me, because my Inbox is full?  That's because my Inbox fills up with PM's from other members asking me to help them.  These are mostly new(ish) members who want help and/or reassurance.  They've seen my efforts in the Den and elsewhere and want to consult me on issues that are troubling them.  

 

Please understand Duderonomy, that I can't possibly share any of this information with you or even declare the identities of these members.

So, you're just going to have to trust me and take my word that I'm very busy helping vulnerable people. Does this make me or anyone else who helps a gatekeeper?  Perhaps so.  But then, isn't this the way Ex-C has always functioned?  And since we know that people are being helped in this way, I think we'd need a pretty good reason to change a system that works.

 

 

BAA, I think you should lobby for your point of view like we all do here (and again, I'm kind of on your side although you wouldn't know it much from my arguments), but when it comes to evidence we need evidence. Not 'scientific studies', not 'evidence suggests', not grant money fueled results, not "I know this is true and I shall shield all others from the dark Untruth, even though my understanding is limited and not complete".

 

Now, speaking of changing how Ex-C functions (at least in this sub-forum) could you help me out a little and explain what you mean by 'lobby'?

 

What is it that you're proposing and what do you mean that... we all do it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

I'm missing me some Ravenstar. lol I was just thinking about that the other day. 

 

I think I've narrowed down the real problem here in my last post, I think. Not all limited understandings are on equal ground. The whole argument here seems to hinge on the fact that we can find limited knowledge in both science and religion. The deeper issue is that religion has to bow out in terms of limited understanding way, way, way before science does. They're no where close to being equal. They're only equal in limited understanding when it comes to the question of absolute ultimate's. But that question doesn't erase all that science does know. It's not as if we should just toss aside science and religion together as one equal pile of bunk. 

 

This is important, because I was once pondering the same type of questions that Mr. Sweet Cheeks is right now pondering. 

 

I looked into alternative scientific thinking. I questioned the standard model. I even went so far as to start thinking that mainstream science is just as big a farce as religion is. But I pressed on until eventually coming to conclusions like I've set forward in my previous post. I think that when people leave christianity they need to gather some sort of working understanding of science, real mainstream science. I was just watching a 3 part series on PBS about human evolution and genetics. This is what we have for human origins. This is it. It's not as if we have on the one hand Genesis and the Enuma Elish that it was based on, and as another option science. We have only science, the mythology absolutely does not describe any real origins, at all. And the only reason we have such debates as creationism verses science is because too many people remain IGNORANT of the hard fact I've laid out in the last two posts. It boils down to ignorance and ignorance alone. 

 

Even if they don't have the evolutionary record completely in correct order yet, that doesn't in any way bolster religion. It simply means that we face a work in progress when it comes to origins. And we only have science to build up answers one step at a time, step by step, by step. The more that people begin to realize and understand this, the less we'll see debates against science by religion. And this is the direction that I take people in real time, day to day life when the issue comes up. And I've found that most people, in real time, actually do start to get it when it's broken down this way. Society in general faces these false options which aren't really two options at all. And when people realize that, they start to change their perspective. 

 

And it doesn't take a specialized scientist to relay these facts to people, it's actually quite simple. 

 

The bottom line is that we all ought to be best friends with 'knowledge and uncertainty' all at the same time. One by itself is not good reason to reject the other. 

[duderonomy]

 

 

The answers can be found in this mission statement of this site, Duderonomy.

 

Ex-C is a self-help group of people who have successfully exited religion and who willingly offer their experiences, expertise and talents to help others do the same. So, if someone has a question about Mosaic Law, then Centauri can help.  If it's about ancient history and religion, then Ravenstar has the necessary skills.  And so on. Ficino and Disillusioned can help with theological, philosophy and doctrinal matters.  The RedneckProf can tackle genetics and evolution.  RogueScholar, quantum physics and chemistry.  Bhim, astrophysics.  Josh has certain areas of knowledge and I can help with astronomy.

 

Each of us freely offers our particular knowledge and expertise to help those who need it.

This is my motivation to help the damaged and vulnerable people who come here looking for and expecting help.  And they are hurt, hurting and vulnerable, my friend.  You can get an idea of just how badly Christianity has hurt them by reading their testimonies.  Margee will also tell you (if you ask her) just how badly they need our help.  Lastly, I cannot share this information with you (because it's strictly confidential) but from time to time, have you noticed that other members post messages saying that they can't PM me, because my Inbox is full?  That's because my Inbox fills up with PM's from other members asking me to help them.  These are mostly new(ish) members who want help and/or reassurance.  They've seen my efforts in the Den and elsewhere and want to consult me on issues that are troubling them.  

 

Please understand Duderonomy, that I can't possibly share any of this information with you or even declare the identities of these members.

So, you're just going to have to trust me and take my word that I'm very busy helping vulnerable people. Does this make me or anyone else who helps a gatekeeper?  Perhaps so.  But then, isn't this the way Ex-C has always functioned?  And since we know that people are being helped in this way, I think we'd need a pretty good reason to change a system that works.

 

 

Now, speaking of changing how Ex-C functions (at least in this sub-forum) could you help me out a little and explain what you mean by 'lobby'?

 

What is it that you're proposing and what do you mean that... we all do it?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA,

 

Thanks for the lecture on Ex-C and how it works.     Although I've been here since who flung the chunk and we have fought battles together against religious bullshit, you seem to think I need a refresher course. Ok.

 

I believe you that the PM's you receive are often personal and can't be shared. I too treat PM's as private and never mention anything said in them in the public part of this site or anywhere else. 

 

I have read the testimonies of so many people that have been hurt by the Christian religion and its various mind bending "teachings".  I have responded where I could and I have tried to answer any questions that people have had as best I could, just like you.  

 

So knock it off with the self-righteous baloney, will you?  You sound like you are explaining all of this to me, as if I'm a newbie.  Puhleeze.

I know that you are a good and honorable guy by now, and I'm sorry if you don't think the same about me.

 

BAA,  did I say that I wanted Ex-C to change in the way it functions?  You brought that up. I never said it, and I don't understand what you are on about.

By "lobbying", I mean it the political sense, as in all of us want our viewpoints to be the ones in the forefront.  See also "Jockey for position", and wouldn't you agree that we all do that?

I'm not proposing anything, like you seem to think I'm doing, I'm still talking about science and the fact that nothing is 'settled' and nothing is 'proven'.

 

Oh, and when I said "gatekeeper" I meant the gatekeeper of all things science, not all things Ex-C. 

 

Part of the problem here is when Josh (Hi Josh, I know you're reading this so I'm not talking behind your back) jumps on a little joke I made about confusing myself and carries it through his entire following response using it like a theme, and you BAA, when you go off on a tangent like I just had to respond to here.

Probably so much kerfuffle, but when it gets to this point it's beyond even the dreaded "define [insert word]". Ugh.

 

Another problem is that we conflate "God", "gods", "Gods" "first cause", and "whatever existed before anything existed unless something always existed and where did that come from",  with religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Because of that, this discussion could go on. And on. And on.

 

 

There is a lot of good stuff in this thread, but since none of us have complete understanding, even our collective understanding is limited.   Let's settle on that, can we and be done with this thread?

 

 

[Joshpantera]

 

There is a lot of good stuff in this thread, but since none of us have complete understanding, even our collective understanding is limited.   Let's settle on that, can we and be done with this thread?

 

Of course my jumping on your confusion statement was a plug to hammer down the real problem behind the direction you tried taking. I don't know if your questions are just playing devils advocate or what? I took them in that sense (of devils advocate) and went for the throat of the direction you proposed for the sake of everyone reading, and of course for your own sake if you weren't simply playing devils advocate. In that event, then yes, these are some of the problems you would face by raising the questions you've raised. 

 

I know you're not a newbie. You've probably been here a hell of a lot longer than me. But have you been deconverted for over 25 years? I only mean to voice the thoughts of a very old deconvert in comparison to most people on this site (since 91') who's gone around, and around, and around with issues of religion and science for a pretty long time now. Again, these thoughts are for you (if necessary) and also any one reading. It's good to know what to expect when raising certain questions about science and religion and trying to make certain claims. I think it's healthy to know where these paths lead. Unless people prefer being blindsided when they come up against someone who thinks in similar ways to what I'm voicing. 

 

If we're to end the discussion then I'll leave it with this: (1) the human condition is one of limited understanding and (2) that in no way puts science and religion on equal ground, (3) because the understanding of religious views is far more limited than the understanding of scientific views. There are levels of limited understanding where some levels, such as religion, rank very low and poor and much more limited in understanding than other ways. While other ways such as science, rank as the highest levels of understanding we can currently attain. This summary is firm and provable via all of the available evidence we have on religion and science and how they each rank in terms of how limited each of their understandings actually are. 

 

The end. 

 

*drops mic, exit's stage...*

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

BAA,

 

Thanks for the lecture on Ex-C and how it works.     Although I've been here since who flung the chunk and we have fought battles together against religious bullshit, you seem to think I need a refresher course. Ok.

 

I believe you that the PM's you receive are often personal and can't be shared. I too treat PM's as private and never mention anything said in them in the public part of this site or anywhere else. 

 

I have read the testimonies of so many people that have been hurt by the Christian religion and its various mind bending "teachings".  I have responded where I could and I have tried to answer any questions that people have had as best I could, just like you.  

 

So knock it off with the self-righteous baloney, will you?  You sound like you are explaining all of this to me, as if I'm a newbie.  Puhleeze.

I know that you are a good and honorable guy by now, and I'm sorry if you don't think the same about me.

 

Lose the attitude.

I was explaining why I 'shield the vulnerable' ...which was your question.  So my reply amounts to nothing more than that.  An answer to your question.  No condescension on my part.  Just the facts.  Also, there's no need to apologize.  You needn't be sorry because of what I think about you wasn't openly declared or indirectly implied in my words.  That notion originates in your head, not mine.

 

 

 

BAA,  did I say that I wanted Ex-C to change in the way it functions?  You brought that up. I never said it, and I don't understand what you are on about.

By "lobbying", I mean it the political sense, as in all of us want our viewpoints to be the ones in the forefront.  See also "Jockey for position", and wouldn't you agree that we all do that?

I'm not proposing anything, like you seem to think I'm doing, I'm still talking about science and the fact that nothing is 'settled' and nothing is 'proven'.

 

No, I don't agree that we all do that.

Look at this thread and see if Disillusioned, Ficino and myself are jockeying over anything related to science.  

Nope!  Instead each of us respects each others expertise in different areas.  None of us is competing with each other.

Please note that even though Disillusioned chose to have this discussion in the Colosseum, a good portion of the dialog concerns science.

 

 

Oh, and when I said "gatekeeper" I meant the gatekeeper of all things science, not all things Ex-C. 

 

Part of the problem here is when Josh (Hi Josh, I know you're reading this so I'm not talking behind your back) jumps on a little joke I made about confusing myself and carries it through his entire following response using it like a theme, and you BAA, when you go off on a tangent like I just had to respond to here.

Probably so much kerfuffle, but when it gets to this point it's beyond even the dreaded "define [insert word]". Ugh.

 

Another problem is that we conflate "God", "gods", "Gods" "first cause", and "whatever existed before anything existed unless something always existed and where did that come from",  with religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Because of that, this discussion could go on. And on. And on.

 

There is a lot of good stuff in this thread, but since none of us have complete understanding, even our collective understanding is limited.   Let's settle on that, can we and be done with this thread?

 

 

Well, if you want to start drawing this thread to a close, can I least refer you to my OP and ask you to concede these points?

 

Given that none of us have complete understanding and that even our collective understanding is limited, will you at least concede that our collective understanding of today is qualitatively and quantitatively better than...

 

A. No understanding at all.

B. The understanding of just one person.

C. The understanding we collectively had yesterday.

 

...?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Oh... and for the sake of transparency, honesty and full declaration, I did go off on a tangent Duderonomy.

 

I mistook what you said to Josh about 'Frickin Popes!' and what you said to me about lobbying.

 

I mistook these things to be politically motivated.

 

I mistakenly thought you were trying to politicize things.

 

My bad. 

[duderonomy]

 

 

Of course my jumping on your confusion statement was a plug to hammer down the real problem behind the direction you tried taking. I don't know if your questions are just playing devils advocate or what? I took them in that sense (of devils advocate) and went for the throat of the direction you proposed for the sake of everyone reading, and of course for your own sake if you weren't simply playing devils advocate. In that event, then yes, these are some of the problems you would face by raising the questions you've raised. 

 

I know you're not a newbie. You've probably been here a hell of a lot longer than me. But have you been deconverted for over 25 years? I only mean to voice the thoughts of a very old deconvert in comparison to most people on this site (since 91') who's gone around, and around, and around with issues of religion and science for a pretty long time now. Again, these thoughts are for you (if necessary) and also any one reading. It's good to know what to expect when raising certain questions about science and religion and trying to make certain claims. I think it's healthy to know where these paths lead. Unless people prefer being blindsided when they come up against someone who thinks in similar ways to what I'm voicing. 

 

If we're to end the discussion then I'll leave it with this: (1) the human condition is one of limited understanding and (2) that in no way puts science and religion on equal ground, (3) because the understanding of religious views is far more limited than the understanding of scientific views. There are levels of limited understanding where some levels, such as religion, rank very low and poor and much more limited in understanding than other ways. While other ways such as science, rank as the highest levels of understanding we can currently attain. This summary is firm and provable via all of the available evidence we have on religion and science and how they each rank in terms of how limited each of their understandings actually are. 

 

The end. 

 

*drops mic, exit's stage...*

 

Josh,

 

It's too bad you dropped the mic and left the stage.  You've been comparing science with religion and that made me think of a question. 

If science covers the natural and never ever covers the supernatural (i.e. spiritual/other-worldly/ooky spooky/paranormal/soulish, life after death-ish stuff) then how is it that science can be considered an authority on such things?

It would seem that the honest answer is that it can't be considered an authority on such things at all, so using science to show that there is no afterlife or that there is no 'God' or that there is nothing beyond the material world we see is futile.

It's not within the remit or the realm of science to explain such things, so such things aren't studied. Is is any of science's business then to try to be an authority on things that it admittedly knows nothing about? 

[Joshpantera]

 

 

Josh,

 

It's too bad you dropped the mic and left the stage.  You've been comparing science with religion and that made me think of a question. 

If science covers the natural and never ever covers the supernatural (i.e. spiritual/other-worldly/ooky spooky/paranormal/soulish, life after death-ish stuff) then how is it that science can be considered an authority on such things?

It would seem that the honest answer is that it can't be considered an authority on such things at all, so using science to show that there is no afterlife or that there is no 'God' or that there is nothing beyond the material world we see is futile.

It's not within the remit or the realm of science to explain such things, so such things aren't studied. Is is any of science's business then to try to be an authority on things that it admittedly knows nothing about? 

 

I may now be just as confused about this whole thing as BAA seems to be. I dropped that mic because you asked me too. I'll cut it off and leave it alone at your request, I'm easy. But if you want me to continue exploring, I can do that too. It's all fine by me. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The reason I've engaged the issue this long is simply because it's an interesting topic to consider. You've come up with good challenging questions that many people may have. 

 

This is good because you've come forward with something very clear that we can consider against the position you've taken about science and religion. I don't think this is jockeying for position as much as maybe fight training or something like that. You throw some hit, it either lands or it doesn't. Something can be learned from it. That goes for anyone.

 

I do have thought about these things. And in that thought process I've sought the foundations of these ideas, about supernatural assertions.

 

Where do they come from, the ideas of the existence of the supernatural? 

 

They come from the human mind and the mythologizing process. According to Campbell the entire issue of supernatural imagery in mythology is metaphor. And to literalize it, is to misunderstand it. So the very assertion of anything supernatural has that foundational flaw right away from the get go. 

 

Moving further, it's not the job of science nor atheism to show that there is no afterlife, ghosts and goblins, fairies wearing boots, or that there is no anything. It's the job of those making the positive claims of the existence of such things to then substantiate their positive claims. That's all there is to it. Science doesn't have to show that there's no Santa Claus, no God, and no Afterlife either. All of these ideas and assertions come from the exact same place, the human mind at work mythologizing. 

 

So now to authority.

 

What authority do any religions have on any of these things?

 

What ever authority they assert is ultimately meaningless because they themselves can not meet any of the burden of proof requirements for the supernatural claims they are making, claims which are made by misreading their own myths as literally true. I'm speaking out a very concise perspective coming from a multi-disciplinary range of topics. Not everyone may be aware of each of these dynamics at play. So it's good to voice it out. Genesis, for instance, is not literally true by any stretch of the imagination. The whole bible falls in behind this understanding. The same with other cultures myths. That can be demonstrated time and again. 

 

We have absolutely no reason to assert anything supernatural outside of taking folklore and mythology literally.

 

Science has shown things such as what germs are. What sickness really is, aside from thinking that it's evil spirits, thinking that it's something literally true from mythology.

 

The afterlife is actually no different.

 

And I suspect that's what all of this is about. You have to take it on faith, that's it. And it's faith based on wishful thinking. My advice is not to cling to supernatural assertions like afterlife, as just a natural part of the deconversion process. I like to think of it as manning up (or womenning up) and facing death with acceptance and integrity. Maybe something goes on, maybe it doesn't. But why not assume it does not and come to a place of accepting life on those terms? Those are good terms to come to. Those terms can throw off any chains or shackles that may remain on you, from religion. I don't see this as a threat to the possibility that something could go on after perceivable death. It just stops that possibility, no matter how remote, from being a mental crutch in someones mind. 

 

If the whole duration of these 8 pages has been nothing more than you resisting everything BAA and I have been saying in favor of putting science way ahead of religion, because you fancy the possibility of an afterlife of some type, and see our thinking as a threat to that possibility, then everything that didn't make sense so far makes much more sense now. And devils advocate or otherwise, I think it's been a good exercise all the same. This is a great consideration to go through. And I think it could help a lot of people to over come a certain hurdle in the deconversion process. I think, that it's perfectly alright for people to voice this kind of struggle where science is viewed as poo pooing the possibility of some kind of afterlife. 

 

It seems that science currently suffers a lot of resistance from the general public for this very reason. 

 

But going deeper into it, the only aspect of ourselves concerned with living forever, is basically the ego. The ego consciousness of a human being generally doesn't want to flash out of existence, doesn't seem to like the thought of that. It's not satisfied with rejoining the whole from whence it came, it seems to want much more. And the human ego appears to have conjured up elaborate myths about living forever, ghosts and spirits, paranormal, etc., etc. It doesn't seem to be anything more than our current state of consciousness dealing with the issue of knowledge of it's own mortality, and longing to think that the end is not the end. 

 

That may seem like one hell of an easy, broad range dismissal of all things supernatural. And it is. 

 

But I'll add that if we were to be as spiritual as humanly possible, we then necessarily have to recognize symbolism as symbolism. In deeply spiritual circles, literalism dissolves. There's no reason to even buck against science about supernatural imagery from the more in depth levels.  And guys like Sam Harris understand this well. As did Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts and a number of very knowledgeable teachers of mythological and spiritual traditions. We've been discussing this very thing in the spirituality section. Deep spiritual insight begins to take on a lack of belief in the literal existence of the gods. And in comparison to these deeper spiritual insights, christian spiritual ideas are actually very bottom rung level when it comes to the possible scope and depth of human spirituality. In some ways they're hardly even spiritual at all. 

 

This gives some more depth to my previous assertions about the place of science and religion, and religion being out as a contender when it comes to describing reality.

 

Religion is really only supposed to keep you in touch with the mystery of your own existence, that's about it. That's all it can do by way of it's metaphorical language. To go further, is to go too far. The truth is that we arise from what remains absolute mystery and then we return again, to the mystery of it all. But many people apparently aren't satisfied with just leaving it at that, at the only factual truth of the matter. And then comes hostile attitudes towards science and the rest of it....

 

It's not only unscientific to take that direction, but it's ultimately un-spiritual too. Spiritual, would be understanding that religions do not in any way describe a real and literal supernatural reality interwoven with the visible reality of everyday life. A very denotative, non-spiritual idea would be to assert that the supernatural imagery found in myths and folklore is hard fact. 

 

And that's the real kick in the nuts that religions take in all of this....

[bornagainathiest]

 

Oh... and for the sake of transparency, honesty and full declaration, I did go off on a tangent Duderonomy.

 

I mistook what you said to Josh about 'Frickin Popes!' and what you said to me about lobbying.

 

I mistook these things to be politically motivated.

 

I mistakenly thought you were trying to politicize things.

 

My bad. 

 

Duderonomy,

 

I noticed that you 'Liked' what I'd written here.

Thanks for that.  In this thread I've tried very hard to be as upfront, forthcoming and transparent as possible.  I've also tried not to be obstructive or confrontational.  When I found myself straying into that kind of behavior I backtracked and undone it all.  Where I've been asked to simply explain something or to give my word that I had no hidden agenda, I've done these things.  Now, in this spirit of openness and cooperation I'd like to offer something else to you - something to do with the mistake I made about you.  

 

Because I've struggled to understand your p.o.v. and your reasoning, I erroneously concluded that politics must have been behind them. 

To be frank, I've struggled for most of this thread and still don't know where you're coming from.  However, now that I know there's no political agenda involved in your posts, I can rule that possibility out.  Yes, I still don't understand, but I do realize and recognize that politics plays no part of your input here.  So far, so good.

 

What's on offer from me today is this.

While I was under the misapprehension that you were politicking, I decided to check with the Mods about politics in the Science vs Religion sub-forum.  I wrote a short message with some questions to them, just before the whole forum went down and then received their reply just after it came back online.  So, for the sake of transparency and full declaration between us, would you like to see my questions and the response to them? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[buffettphan]

 

 

... I decided to check with the Mods about politics in the Science vs Religion sub-forum.  I wrote a short message with some questions to them, just before the whole forum went down and then received their reply just after it came back online.  So, for the sake of transparency and full declaration between us, would you like to see my questions and the response to them? 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

Please see the "Discussion of Moderation" section of the Guidelines.  Do not publicly disclose any PMs. 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Please see the "Discussion of Moderation" section of the Guidelines.  Do not publicly disclose any PMs. 

 

 

 

Ah... ok buffetphan.

 

Sorry 'bout that.

 

If Duderonomy and I do this via PM that'll be ok?