Dogblogger asked if my issue with Atheism came from people calling me an atheist in a closed thread.
No. I have lots of friends and loved ones who are atheists. I am in a long term relationship with an atheist and we see eye to eye on 99.9% of issues.
I only have a problem with atheists like Dawkins who act like all of us non-believers ought to quit being fence sitters and just pick a side already.As if there are only two choices. As if "Pantheism is just sexed up atheism and Deism is just sexed up Theism."
That's bullshit.

I think very few of us feel as you say Dawkins does. To that extent, you are preaching to the choir.

I don't think the make-up of his audience means anything; rather it seems that he simply has to have one.

If none of us knew these innermost thoughts of his, would his life be any different?

You probably just have selfish genes who don't like popular atheist's memes.

I agree that koriwhore is not an atheist. But I would say it's more for his active beliefs than for his discomfort with how some atheists behave.

This is an open forum,
95% of the time when I bring up somebody's opinion that differs from the othodox materialist atheist opinion dominating this forum, I get attacked, personally, somebody suggest that I need my head examined, for bringing up the fact somebody far more intelligent than you or me, says leading atheists are jerks and he doesn't want to be one of them.
Can you blame him?

That isn't fair or accurate. There is no such thing as an "orthodox. . . atheist opinion." Moreover very few people would challenge the views that you convey from other thinkers; divergence of opinions is not per se offensive to many people here. What is tiresome, however, is your constant repetition of the same hackneyed themes: that is whence the opposition arises.

As for the notion that somebody else is "far more intelligent than" the people on this forum, is that not a statement that you cannot possibly verify?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That isn't fair or accurate. There is no such
> thing as an "orthodox. . . atheist opinion."
> Moreover very few people would challenge the views
> that you convey from other thinkers; divergence of
> opinions is not per se offensive to many people
> here. What is tiresome, however, is your constant
> repetition of the same hackneyed themes: that is
> whence the opposition arises.
>
> As for the notion that somebody else is "far more
> intelligent than" the people on this forum, is
> that not a statement that you cannot possibly
> verify?


Please do send me your credentials.
I'm sure nobody on this site is qualified to run the Hayden Planetarium, have a weekly science program on National Geographic Channel, or Write a NYT best seller or Produce and direct and act in the 2nd version of Sagan's Cosmos series. He's done all four.
He does more for educating the public than anybody else on the planet.
People here don't like me bringing up anybody who doesn't identify as an Atheist so they attack me personally and suggest I'm insane, for bringing up an opinion of somebody other than the self proclaimed, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, aka, New Atheists.
What was wrong with the old atheists, like Epicurus?
I am an Epicurean,
Who likes good art, music, food, wine, culture and I believe happiness is mainly the absence of pain. And pain shouldn't be feared, because the fear is often worse than the pain. I don't fear Gods or death.
They're not real.
What is horrible in life is easily endured.
What is good is easily obtained.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 09:31PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please do send me your credentials.

Why? My "credentials" are irrelevant.



--------------
> I'm sure nobody on this site is qualified to run
> the Hayden Planetarium, have a weekly science
> program on National Geographic Channel, or Write a
> NYT best seller or Produce and direct and act in
> the 2nd version of Sagan's Cosmos series. He's
> done all four.

So he's a pop star. Better than some of your other heroes (didn't you mention Bill Maher recently?), but he's famous because he is on TV and not for any monumental scientific achievements. The same is true also of Sagan. Celebrities are not necessarily--in fact, they are rarely--brilliant.

By contrast, there are people on this site that may well be more intelligent than those men. Mathematicians, scientists, some people in the social sciences, and a lot of people who read but don't post. You make a logical mistake when you assert that the pop stars whom you find appealing are smarter than an audience you do not know.




--------------
> He does more for educating the public than anybody
> else on the planet.

Well, that's different than being a genius, isn't it. It's also patently silly. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of people who have done "more for educating the public" than Tyson.




--------------------
> People here don't like me bringing up anybody who
> doesn't identify as an Atheist so they attack me
> personally and suggest I'm insane, for bringing up
> an opinion of somebody other than the self
> proclaimed, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, aka,
> New Atheists.

People don't attack you for bringing up the views of anyone but the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (another pop culture phrase). They disagree with you about your definitions, your mischaracterizations of others, and for repetition ad nauseam of what are really only three topics.




---------
> What was wrong with the old atheists, like
> Epicurus?

Nothing. Do you have any of your own opinions?



--------------
> I am an Epicurean,
> Who likes good art, music, food, wine, culture and
> I believe happiness is mainly the absence of pain.
> And pain shouldn't be feared, because the fear is
> often worse than the pain. I don't fear Gods or
> death.

That could make you an Epicurean. It could also make you a Philistine.



--------------
Do you have any opinions of your own?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Please do send me your credentials.
>
> Why? My "credentials" are irrelevant.
>
>
>
> --------------
> > I'm sure nobody on this site is qualified to
> run
> > the Hayden Planetarium, have a weekly science
> > program on National Geographic Channel, or Write
> a
> > NYT best seller or Produce and direct and act
> in
> > the 2nd version of Sagan's Cosmos series. He's
> > done all four.
>
> So he's a pop star. Better than some of your
> other heroes (didn't you mention Bill Maher
> recently?), but he's famous because he is on TV
> and not for any monumental scientific
> achievements. The same is true also of Sagan.
> Celebrities are not necessarily--in fact, they are
> rarely--brilliant.
>
> By contrast, there are people on this site that
> may well be more intelligent than those men.
> Mathematicians, scientists, some people in the
> social sciences, and a lot of people who read but
> don't post. You make a logical mistake when you
> assert that the pop stars whom you find appealing
> are smarter than an audience you do not know.
>
>

>
>
> --------------
> > He does more for educating the public than
> anybody
> > else on the planet.
>
> Well, that's different than being a genius, isn't
> it. It's also patently silly. There are
> hundreds, maybe thousands of people who have done
> "more for educating the public" than Tyson.
>
>
Really? Name somebody who's had a NYT best seller about science for over a year, let alone anybody on this board.
>
>
> --------------------
> > People here don't like me bringing up anybody
> who
> > doesn't identify as an Atheist so they attack
> me
> > personally and suggest I'm insane, for bringing
> up
> > an opinion of somebody other than the self
> > proclaimed, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,
> aka,
> > New Atheists.
>
> People don't attack you for bringing up the views
> of anyone but the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse
> (another pop culture phrase). They disagree with
> you about your definitions, your
> mischaracterizations of others, and for repetition
> ad nauseam of what are really only three topics.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------
> > What was wrong with the old atheists, like
> > Epicurus?
>
> Nothing. Do you have any of your own opinions?
>
>
>
> --------------
> > I am an Epicurean,
> > Who likes good art, music, food, wine, culture
> and
> > I believe happiness is mainly the absence of
> pain.
> > And pain shouldn't be feared, because the fear
> is
> > often worse than the pain. I don't fear Gods or
> > death.
>
> That could make you an Epicurean. It could also
> make you a Philistine.
>
>
>
> --------------
> Do you have any opinions of your own?

Plenty.
The reaction to the NdGT thread, and this one, is data enough for me.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Really? Name somebody who's had a NYT best seller
> about science for over a year, let alone anybody
> on this board.

So if having a book on the NYT bestseller list is proof of genius. . . Einstein was not a genius?

I guess that means that there are geniuses who have not risen to such august heights. Neils Bohr, perhaps, or Isaac Newton or Churchill or Mozart. . . So perhaps the NYT and National Geographic and the Discovery Channel and Dora the Explorer aren't the right measure of "genius."

You should get out more.




------------
> The reaction to the NdGT thread, and this one, is
> data enough for me.

Kori, that is ridiculous. In your boorishness, you drive people to the point where they crack jokes at your expense. The constant repetition (missionaries, God particle, atheism) with virtually no new content, plus the incessant name-dropping, alienates people.

It's not clear to many of us why you engage in such masochistic behavior.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 10:33PM by Lot's Wife.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? Name somebody who's had a NYT best seller
> about science for over a year, let alone anybody
> on this board.

Stephen Hawking for close to three years.

ETA: oops.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 10:39PM by Lot's Wife.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Really? Name somebody who's had a NYT best
> seller
> > about science for over a year, let alone
> anybody
> > on this board.
>
> Stephen Hawking for close to three years.

True.
But he's not on the list now. Name a living scientist who's done more to educate the public about science than Tyson, who's run isn't over.
Hawking didn't produce a TV show like Cosmos, that reached millions of people. NdGT did. I'd say he's done more for scientific education of the public than anybody besides maybe Sagan or Bill Nye.
Not that being on the NYT bestseller list and having an award winning tv show about science, makes you a great scientist.
But NdGT was already a great scientist before he wrote book about Astrophysics. They don't give director of Hayden Planetarium to just anybody. Certainly nobody on this board would be qualified to do one of his jobs, to say nothing of his other 4 or 5 jobs, myself included.

Move the goal posts. How nice.

That's what they do, our droppers of names. . .

Yuval Harari

Desmond Morris, though deprecated now.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 95% of the time when I bring up somebody's opinion
> that differs from the othodox materialist atheist
> opinion dominating this forum, I get attacked,

a) disagreeing with you is not an "attack"
b) there is no such thing as "othodox[sic] materialist atheist opinion"
c) you contradict yourself regularly, as I pointed out in the original thread on this subject. That's one of the things being criticized (not "attacked")
d) your tendency to cherry-pick quotes from famous people, and then pretend you're just like them, is another thing that's criticized (not "attacked")


Let me just finish by pointing out that the whole thread where you kept claiming to not define yourself in "negative terms" was titled "Why I'm not an atheist" -- a negative term.

Do you get the point now?

I don't see this as being an "Open Forum"...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see this as being an "Open Forum"...
It's Forum, that's open, except for Mormon Apologists.
Thank Goodness.
Fuck them.

I'd rather be known for my puny little accomplishments than for hanging onto the coat-tails of a media star, no matter how intelligent he or she might be.

I find it very surprising that you can't see, or refuse to acknowledge, the basis of our lack of esteem for your repeated forays into schooling us on how to think like you.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd rather be known for my puny little
> accomplishments than for hanging onto the
> coat-tails of a media star, no matter how
> intelligent he or she might be.
>
> I find it very surprising that you can't see, or
> refuse to acknowledge, the basis of our lack of
> esteem for your repeated forays into schooling us
> on how to think like you.


I'm not hanging on the coat tails of a media star.
He's an astrophysicist who is director of the Hayden Planeterium.
He's a scientist.
Name another scientist, living or dead, who's done more for educating the public in science than him.
Go ahead.
Lot's Wife failed miserably when I asked her.

koriwhore Wrote:

> I'm not hanging on the coat tails of a media star.

Yes, you are. You are one of those people who watch TV shows, read popular books, and think that acquaints you with genius. The truth is the real geniuses don't have time for TV and bestsellers.




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

> Name another scientist, living or dead, who's done
> more for educating the public in science than him.


Bait and switch. Above, you stated that Tyson "does more for educating the public than anybody else on the planet" and challenged me to name someone else who had. That is a generic question, obviously false since other people established the entire public education systems of the entire world.

Here you say "name another scientist," which is a distinctly different demand.




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

> Lot's Wife failed miserably when I asked her.

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. How could I "fail miserably" to answer a question that you did not ask?

I might, with more justification, observe that Koriwhore "failed miserably" to ask his question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 10:57PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
>
> > I'm not hanging on the coat tails of a media
> star.
>
> Yes, you are. You are one of those people who
> watch TV shows, read popular books, and think that
> acquaints you with genius. The truth is the real
> geniuses don't have time for TV and bestsellers.
>
>
>
>
> -------------
>
> > Name another scientist, living or dead, who's
> done
> > more for educating the public in science than
> him.
>
>
> Bait and switch. Above, you stated that Tyson
> "does more for educating the public than anybody
> else on the planet" and challenged me to name
> someone else who had. That is a generic question,
> obviously false since other people established the
> entire public education systems of the entire
> world.
>
> Here you say "name another scientist," which is a
> distinctly different demand.
>
>
>
>
> ----------------
>
> > Lot's Wife failed miserably when I asked her.
>
> I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. How could
> I "fail miserably" to answer a question that you
> did not ask?
>
> I might, with more justification, observe that
> Koriwhore "failed miserably" to ask his question.

I asked you to name a scientist who's written a science book that's been on the NYT best seller list for more than a year.
You couldn't.
Somebody else said Hawking.
OK, but he's dead.
And Tyson's book is still on the NYT bestseller's list.

Name somebody living.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I asked you to name a scientist who's written a
> science book that's been on the NYT best seller
> list for more than a year.
> You couldn't.

Why in heaven's name would I do that? The NYT bestseller list has nothing to do with scientific genius.

You might as well ask me to name one scientist whose name shows up in Dr. Seuss. Neither question matters.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I asked you to name a scientist who's written a
> > science book that's been on the NYT best seller
> > list for more than a year.
> > You couldn't.
>
> Why in heaven's name would I do that? The NYT
> bestseller list has nothing to do with scientific
> genius.
>
> You might as well ask me to name one scientist
> whose name shows up in Dr. Seuss. Neither
> question matters.
He's the Carl Sagan of our generation and you act like he's just some random celebrity with zero credit, to make yourself seem more intelligent.
You said there were plenty of far more intelligent people on RfM than NdGT. I just asked for tgeir bios.
So far you produced jack squat.

I don't have people's bios. I just know that Carl Sagan was no genius; he was a decent scientist who became a pop star. You are the only person who is so enamored of him.

If you are going to hitch your wagon to some intellectual star, choose someone better.

Face it: We don't get you. Your efforts to pull us up to your level aren't working. Since you are a finite resource, I hope you can find an open forum more deserving. Our loss will be there gain.

This place has obviously become an echo chamber of mutual mental masturbation when 58 out of 59 responses to my NdGT thread completely disagree with NdGT, our generation's Carl Sagan and insist he's an atheist, when he says he's no such thing.

His statement actually doesn't address his beliefs. So his labeling dodge is just that, a dodge.

Well it sounds like he must be wrong! After all, you just counted the votes!! What more do you want us to do?

A confession: I neither know nor care what NdGT thinks about any deity. That is a literal truth.

But, and it's a big but: I loved him on The Big Bang Theory!!

This misrepresentation is just stupid.

I, for one, never expressed an opinion about NdGT's or Sagan's views. I don't know them, which doesn't bother me because 1) my views are independent of theirs, and 2) there is wisdom in the dictum that you should never listen to a celebrity unless they are speaking someone else's words.

People aren't against those men, nor necessarily against your opinions changeable though they be. What people are against is your constant hectoring, your incessant name dropping, and your inability to understand what others are actually saying.

You are not engaged in dialogue. You are the sound of one hand clapping.



ETA: The problem is in the threads you start. In other people's threads, you often make valuable contributions. It is just in your threads on missionaries/cuckoldry, the God Particle as God, and atheism that you become insufferable.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/12/2018 11:38PM by Lot's Wife.

I get that Hawking obviously was probably the greatest scientific genius of our generation, and he was an atheist, but not even he could see inside of a black hole, since the closest one to us is 25,000 light years from here, meaning he'd have to travel as fast as light (670million mph) to get there in 25,000 years.
So how the hell can he rule out whatever is at the center of the black hole has all the qualifications of a creator?
I mean, isn't it possible that the singularity creates everything else?
Super symmetry, gravity, the weak and the strong force, matter and anti-matter, dark matter and dark energy and the plasma radiating from the black holes, named after Hawking?
If so, wouldn't that make the singularity, the creator, god, for all intents and purposes?
I mean, any sufficiently advanced species could meet the requirements of being a God, right?
So how can you rule out the existence of something or some species that might be to us what we are to domestic dogs?

You're making Sagan's mistake of assigning certainty to atheism. That is not the claim of atheism generally though there are atheists who will go that far.

It's not about what all the possibilities are. Most of the possibilities are baseless nonesense as illustrated by Russell's teapot.

It's about what the evidence we have is. Most atheists are happy to consider new evidence.

But it can go more ways than just proof of god. What kind of God does it prove? If you read my post in the Palmyra chariot thread that assumes the hypothetical of hard evidence for Mormonism, I still wouldn't worship that God as I consider him immoral and an ass.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're making Sagan's mistake of assigning
> certainty to atheism. That is not the claim of
> atheism generally though there are atheists who
> will go that far.

I agree with Dawkins for the most part. He says he's 99.99% certain that of all the Gods who've been presented to date, he doesn't believe in any of them. But nobody can be 100% certain of anything, in a world that is largely a mystery. I mean, hell, we've only explored 5% of the ocean and we think we know it all.
But all of us are atheists in regards to 99.99% of the Gods that have ever been. Hell there are 300 million Gods in the Hindu pantheon alone and not many of us believe in any of them. Dawkins says he just goes one God further.
But he doesn't reject Einstein's god, which is Spinozza's god, which was Emerson's god and Theoreaus and the Native American's Great Spirit and the Stoic's Logos.

> It's not about what all the possibilities are.
> Most of the possibilities are baseless nonesense
> as illustrated by Russell's teapot.


> It's about what the evidence we have is. Most
> atheists are happy to consider new evidence.
>
> But it can go more ways than just proof of god.
> What kind of God does it prove?
If whatever is at the center of our galaxy is responsible for creating what stardust accumulates on its accretion disk, that could be called the creator, right?
God for all intents and purposes.

If you read my
> post in the Palmyra chariot thread that assumes
> the hypothetical of hard evidence for Mormonism, I
> still wouldn't worship that God as I consider him
> immoral and an ass.


Why do you assume god has a penis?
That's the false dichotomy I see.

I'm referencing the mormon god who is male.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2018 02:22PM by dogblogger.

god (n.)
Old English god "supreme being, deity; the Christian God; image of a god; godlike person," from Proto-Germanic *guthan (source also of Old Saxon, Old Frisian, Dutch god, Old High German got, German Gott, Old Norse guð, Gothic guþ), which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *ghut- "that which is invoked" (source also of Old Church Slavonic zovo "to call," Sanskrit huta- "invoked," an epithet of Indra), from root *gheu(e)- "to call, invoke." The notion could be "divine entity summoned to a sacrifice."

But some trace it to PIE *ghu-to- "poured," from root *gheu- "to pour, pour a libation" (source of Greek khein "to pour," also in the phrase khute gaia "poured earth," referring to a burial mound; see found (v.2)). "Given the Greek facts, the Germanic form may have referred in the first instance to the spirit immanent in a burial mound" [Watkins]. See also Zeus. *In either case, not related to good.*

Popular etymology has long derived God from good; but a comparison of the forms ... shows this to be an error. Moreover, the notion of goodness is not conspicuous in the heathen conception of deity, and in good itself the ethical sense is comparatively late. [Century Dictionary, 1897]

https://www.etymonline.com/word/god

Small point. Just sayin' Emphasis added. The overlap comes from the persnickety trying to avoid using "god" -- as in being too nice to say "for God's sake!" and substituting "for goodness sake!" Locally you also get "gosh" and "gall durn it!" the same way. Other seeming overlaps come from phrases abbreviating and changing over time. Goodbye does indeed come from God be with you," but doesn't mean good and god have the same root.

Speaking of persnickety -- being too atheist to use dollars? Ah Puritanism -- proving it is a state of mind and a NOT belief system -- involving either God or goodness.

I read that too.
Im just saying the words are synonymous, as in thank goodness means same thing as thank god.
I think of it that way.
I have to reconcile two realities. My partner is an atheist and my bosses are all super Christian.
When I interviewed for my position the owner of my company asked me,"How are you with God?"
I didnt answer immediately because I was stunned this was even happening.
So he said,"Its fine if you are an Atheist or whatever, we just dont want you being upset if somebody usrs the word God around here."
I said,"Well last time I checjed it said'In God We Trust" on every dollar bill Ive ever receieved. I mean if you don't trust in God then what do you trust in?"
They laughed and the Boss said,"Well the only reason I do bring it up is because there have been people who have objected to hearing the word God in the workplace before."
I asked him,"Did they take their pay in US Dollars?"
He said,"Yeah."
I said,"Well they couldnt be too offended by the word God or they wouldnt acceot money with In God We Trust written in it? Maybe they'd prefer getting paid in North Korean Wons?"
He laughed and hired me, without me having to tell him I believed in the god of Einstein, only one which does play dice on a subatomic level, with dice that are loaded in favor of matter instead of anti matter, life instead of destruction.

Carry on. Seriously. My post was just a note.

Now I have a couple of others.

1. I think MOST of us reconcile those two worlds. MOST people know atheists and believers. I belong to a church that effortlessly includes both. I went to a (rather good) play in Provo recently written by a Mormon about (an autobiographical) protagonist -- who was the outspoken family atheist. If I met someone who didn't know both I would say, "Wow. You REALLY need to get out more!"

2. Your boss was not only out of line, his question was illegal. From the EEOC: "Pre-Employment Inquiries and Religious Affiliation or Beliefs
"Questions about an applicant's religious affiliation or beliefs (unless the religion is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)), are generally viewed as non job-related and problematic under federal law.

"Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies are exempt from the federal laws that EEOC enforces when it comes to the employment of individuals based on their particular religion. In other words, an employer whose purpose and character is primarily religious is permitted to lean towards hiring persons of the same religion. This exception relieves religious organizations only from the ban on employment discrimination based on religion. It does not exempt such organizations from employing individuals due to their race, gender, national origin, disability, color, and/or age. Other employers should avoid questions about an applicant's religious affiliation, such as place of worship, days of worship, and religious holidays and should not ask for references from religious leaders, e.g., minister, rabbi, priest, imam, or pastor." (Sorry to be so boring.)

3. His logic is even worse than his knowledge of contemporary and well-known (and legally enforced) hiring practices. Long before our current worldwide diversity, people have always lived in cultures with symbols and saying they did not agree with. We go to work in buildings without 13th floors -- although we personally are not superstitious. There are dozens of responses to show how ridiculous he was being. One could point out that dollars also have pyramids with eyes -- but having a dollar in his pocket doesn't mean he is a Mason -- or a believer in pyramid power or that his god is open to being represented as an all-seeing eye. (A number of gods are not.) In the Commonwealth there are many (estimates range up to 20%) who think the royals are, as said in the The Queen, "emotionally-stunted nutters." And they still believe that -- even thought they get paid in pounds with Elizabeth II's image.

Your boss earned some serious side-eye there.

(e_e)

I had no idea.

I'll never forgive him for telling me that Pluto is not a planet.

Carry on.

Does Neil Degrasse Tyson believe in any gods? Nope.

That's what matters.

And Koriwhore is an atheist.

He's a pantheist or panentheist depending on the thread.

Koriwhore has also told us several times that he is a Moslem. It's difficult to keep it all straight.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2018 05:52PM by Lot's Wife.

It's my recollection that yes, he did join up with Islam, but that he no longer either believes or practices. I think it was something to do with giving it up for Lent, one year. I'm old; things are fuzzy...

It does get dizzying with all the changes.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Koriwhore has also told us several times that he
> is a Moslem. It's difficult to keep it all
> straight.
I was Muslim.
When I lived in a predominantly Muslim country, up until 9-11,
The first thing I said was, "Neitzsche was right, God is dead. Fuck Religion. To hell with tribalism. Imagine No Religion. Be the change you want to see in the world."
I was Always a pantheist however, even when I was mostly Mormon.
I have always believed in the god of Epicurous, who developed non-deterministic atomic physics, 300 yrs before Christ. Sagan's god was the same god, "the immutable laws that govern the universe.
But why pray to gravity?"
Why not pray to Singularity?
Or the Great Attractor
Or God Particle?
Minus the God Particle?
Or Great Spirit like my Native American family?
Or
Tao
Yin/Yang,
Sun and moon
Not opposite,
Super Symetry
One wuth the singularity
In perfect balance
Eternally



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2018 08:39PM by koriwhore.

So complicated!

We're just a bunch of local yokels who would like the mormon church to die in our arms, as we soothingly say to it, "It's all right...it's going to be okay...just go toward the light!"

Just try to be at "one wuth the singularity."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just try to be at "one wuth the singularity."

It's why I'm not a pantheist

Looks like Koriwhore is in for the full fight. I think he's going to go the full 15 rounds.

I recall the day when an atheist on RFM criticised an atheist on this very board for "not being atheist enough."

And I suddenly pictured him saying, years before, as a TBM: "The trouble with you, you aren't Mormon enough!"

He'd somehow turned atheism into a "faith" which looking back on it, it's really quite bizarre.

He's bringing balance to The Force of Atheism.