Clearsky

Emma, I think you shall win most battles!

Oh, if only the various religious scholars would bring their beliefs to a more scientific, world debate, or at least pretend to work out their differences.

Simon Paynton wrote:
I don’t believe that a loving God would send people to hell for not believing – period.

You have my vote!

I wonder what were the historical reasons for believing that God is a jealous god, at that time.

I think it’s as much to do with group loyalty as anything.

Yes, and projection.

I don’t know, it seems like a bizarre…

[Read more]

For @TomS in particular, I submit “Fruitcake Mathematics.” (This video is in an article among the 2018-09-16 Sunday School links.)

It’s a Fruitcake, all the way down… and it might be bouncy.

tom sarbeck wrote:
For what reason do so many here capitalize the g-word?

To differentiate it as a proper noun from our more generic god or gods.

Like Allah. Albeit purported as “the same god” as God, ’tis modern parlance, even when fictional and redundant. And redundant. And repetitive. In modern parlance.

Some speaketh like others, to mock…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Maybe God is a description of certain properties of the universe, like energy is.

I don’t think God started off explicitly in people’s minds like that, but these days people could latch onto that. They’ve traditionally latched onto a myriad of metaphysical explanations to mysteries of all sorts.

Clearsky wrote:
This stuff is my personal conjecture on what should constitute an Atheist worldview. I am not saying that it represents all atheist thinking. Just what I’ve come to think is a good way of looking at things.

I like that caveat, along with the rest of what you’re noting, and I think most scientists would agree.

Mainly, and also re…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
But I view the world as if God doesn’t exist, because I find Him a) redundant; b) downright confusing when you play out all the consequences.

This is not God’s fault, but the fault of men who misquote Him. (Believe me, He has told me this, personally.)

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I burned some energy thinking about the concept of that fire.

I love the smell of burnt brain cells in the morning.

I live the sell of burnt brain smells in the morning.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
But Dr. Bob…as I said before…energy is not a concept. The concept of energy is a concept..:-)

Oh for heavens sake, a construct is a construct, not to mention a construct of itself.

And it’s constructs all the way down.

fullermingjr wrote:
Who is Earle and how do I find the misleading quotes he has provided?

It all started here.

tom sarbeck wrote:
However, I’m reluctant to say that doing so is a product of evolution when it may be a product of early nurture.

Sure, discussions about who did what and when, if a god caused anything, and other stories to tell children and each other came along after we  invented language. I’m mostly convinced that the neurological mec…[Read more]

Tom said about Simon’s view:

I could say that, Simon, but I won’t until I have evidence for entropy’s being a substance.

Entropy, in the general sense, considers confined systems (like cells) as their own systems with internal vs external states of entropy, so speaking of a cell or a tissue or a body or even civilization in terms of entropy, tho…[Read more]

While hopelessly lost in those infinitudes, isn’t it safe to say we’ll never know the answer to questions like that?

And… afterlife? Were you smoking something?

I think it’s all a big con. None of it makes any sense. Their secret societies are running our educational institutions, and youtube.