Others here I questioned.
I have been waiting to see how long I could play Devils advocate.
If you are atheist. I am agnostic. We should be on each other's side, with all the 'other' None's, who make up 20% of the US Population.
I don't think Dawkins is doing the cause any good politically. We should be represented but we are not? How many members of congress identify themselves as 'nothing in particular'
None. Why?
I pointed out a deep divide here between atheism and pantheism, by using the exact same arguments used by Einstein, Tyson, Sagan, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Sam Harris, for choosing Agnostic rather than Atheist, and I get personally attacked here.
Which is kind of hilarious, but can one of you tell me whether I should believe in things like Dark Matter/Energy now that there are serious indications there was no Big Bang, that it is ongoing billions of big bangs? SuperNovas Pulsars, Quasars all pushing everything that matters into a disk we call our Milkey Way, with on Super Massive Black Hole at its center we call SagA* as it spins towards the Great Attractor at 14mul mph?
Inexorably?
Couldn't the strings in strong theory be the trails of the ghost particles left behind, neutrinos, the basis of all matter, spinning through the God Particle, creates mass, all mass. Light carries information?
Couldn't Gid be the God Particle, without the particle?
We've seen it and it is a field, not a particle. We are swimming in it.
It doesn't really matter who we are, the most we can hope to achieve is Sapience, as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
You are wise men and I have benefited greatly from your wisdom in the past and I look forward to the kind human exchange as times inevitably change, as they must.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2015 12:02AM by koriwhore.

Uh, thank you, I guess....

May I suggest that it is OK to be agnostic about those big questions that science has (not yet!) been able to answer convincingly?

As the old saying goes, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I am willing to admit that I don't know about a lot of things. I am hesitant to believe a lot of things.

Whether there was a Big Bang or whether a Black Hole is sucking us in and will destroy us all within the next x billion years does not - and should not and will not - affect the way I live my life.

Peace!

You say: "I don't think Dawkins is doing the cause any good politically."

I say you aren't doing the cause any good, period.

like Sam Harris, who criticizes New Atheism.
Like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who criticizes New Atheism,
Like Bill Nye, who rejects the Atheist label.
None of that's good for New Atheism, is it?
No Questions allowed!!!


My claim is that even though we're a part of the same demographic, No Religion, we're miles apart philosophically.
I'm with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Sam Harris, Sagan, Einstein, Eurelius, Epicurus, Lao Tzu, among others, all of whom were Agnostic.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 05:40PM by Susan I/S.

Sam Harris is generally considered to be one of the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism though. Me, I identify as Agnostic Atheist. I don't know if there's a God (Agnostic) but I see no real evidence to believe there is one though (Atheist).

others call him an Atheist, a term he rejects, for good reason.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMa-0Fjn2sU

. . . about Harris.

Documented evidence of that fact (complete with linked counter claims provably undercutting your numerous, listed falsifications) is coming soon.

Warning: You are about to get hosed.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 11:08PM by steve benson.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Others here I questioned.
> I have been waiting to see how long I could play
> Devils advocate.
> If you are atheist. I am agnostic. We should be on
> each other's side, with all the 'other' None's,
> who make up 20% of the US Population.
> I don't think Dawkins is doing the cause any good
> politically.

OK. You're entitled to your opinion. I don't happen to agree with it.

> I pointed out a deep divide here between atheism
> and pantheism, by using the exact same arguments
> used by Einstein, Tyson, Sagan, Bill Nye the
> Science Guy, Sam Harris, for choosing Agnostic
> rather than Atheist, and I get personally attacked
> here.

Oh, now...largely you didn't get "personally attacked." That's kinda playing the "persecution card." Mostly what was criticized were the arguments you made, and the way you made them. You weren't very honest in doing so, you quote-mined and misrepresented, and you did so incessantly. Was that all part of the "devil's advocate" thing? Or was it how you really felt?

> Which is kind of hilarious, but can one of you
> tell me whether I should believe in things like
> Dark Matter/Energy now that there are serious
> indications there was no Big Bang, that it is
> ongoing billions of big bangs?

I wouldn't ever tell you to "believe" anything. I find "belief" essentially worthless. And you appear to need a great deal of education in science/cosmology. The sentence above demonstrates either ignorance or dishonesty about the things you mention -- if you feel these issues matter, then go *learn* about them, the evidence for/against them, and start dealing in knowledge -- not "belief."


> SuperNovas Pulsars,
> Quasars all pushing everything that matters into a
> disk we call our Milkey Way, with on Super Massive
> Black Hole at its center we call SagA* as it spins
> towards the Great Attractor at 14mul mph?
> Inexorably?

See, once again you're demonstrating a great deal of ignorance about what evidence we have actually shows. Pretty much none of that is correct (hint: there are no quasars in the Milky Way). Go learn about this stuff, rather than read a few "popular" articles that don't give any details.

> It doesn't really matter who we are, the most we
> can hope to achieve is Sapience, as Homo Sapiens
> Sapiens.
> You are wise men and I have benefited greatly from
> your wisdom in the past and I look forward to the
> kind human exchange as times inevitably change, as
> they must.

I'll simply encourage you to keep learning and questioning and investigating. "Belief" tends to put an end to questioning and knowledge, questioning leads to knowledge. But it's work, takes time and effort, and dedication. "Belief" is quick and easy, which is why it satisfies so many. Your path is yours to choose, and I'm certainly not going to tell you how you should walk it, I'll just make what I have found to be useful suggestions.

One of those suggestions: don't misrepresent yourself on boards like this just to play "devil's advocate." Be more honest. :)

I didn't misrepresent myself.
I don't believe in the God of Abraham, but I do believe in the god of Buddhism, Taoism, Confuscianism, Stoicism and Epicureanism, only I spell it, nature.
I'm not an Atheist, for the same reasons Einstein, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Epicurus, Aurelius and the Dalai Lama are not Atheists, reasons I've enumerated numerous times, here.

Let me give you a specific and recent example of your dishonest tactic in that regard. You claimed that not only Einstein, but also astronomer Carl Sagan, was not an atheist. As proof, you cited the following Sagan statement:

“I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?” Carl Sagan in a letter to Robert Pope, of Windsor, Ontario, Oct. 2, 1996

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/


What, of course, you conveniently failed to mention were other Sagan quotes (and observations made by those who knew Sagan well)--ones that CAME FROM THE SAME WEBSITE THAT YOU LInKED TO ABOVE--and which help put Sagan's thoughts on the question of God in more accurate context.

--Carl Sagan:

"I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides."

("In the Valley of the Shadow", "Parade" magazine, 10 March 1996)


--Carl Sagan:

“Do you understand how--assuming either of us ever did say, ‘The universe can be explained without postulating God’--this could be understood as dogmatic? I often talk about the ‘God hypothesis’ as something I’d be fully willing to accept if there were compelling evidence; unfortunately, there is nothing approaching compelling evidence. That attitude, it seems to me, is undogmatic.”

(Carl Sagan to Stephen Jay Gould, 18 December 1989)


--"David Grinspoon, a planetary scientist whose father was Sagan’s best friend, and who referred to Sagan as'“Uncle Carl,' tells me [Joel Achenbach, with the 'Washington Post'] by e-mail":

“In his adult life, he [Sagan] was very close to being an atheist. I personally had several conversations with him about religion, belief, god, and yes I agree he was darn close. It’s really semantics at this level of distinction. He was certainly not a theist. And I suppose I can relate because I personally don’t call myself an atheist, although if you probed what I believe, it would be indistinguishable from many who do use that term.”

(David Grinspoon, email to Achenbach)


--"I [Achenbach] e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:

“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.’”

(Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow, email to Achenbach)


--Joel Achenbach, "Washington Post":

"Here’s a definition of 'agnosticism' from Merriam-Webster: 'Agnosticism may mean no more than the suspension of judgment on ultimate questions because of insufficient evidence, or it may constitute a rejection of traditional Christian tenets.' The same online dictionary says of 'atheism,' 'Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial.'

"By these definitions, we should call Sagan an agnostic. And yet, to my ear, 'agnostic' doesn’t quite capture the skepticism that Sagan brought to the issue. I want a word with a little more spin on it.

"Surf around the Web and you’ll find other parsings of 'atheist' and 'agnostic,' including one at about.com that talks about the concept of an 'agnostic atheist.' You might also want to check out the commentary Penn Jillette did for the NPR 'This I Believe' series, in which he [Sagan] begins, 'I believe there is no God” (he describes that as 'beyond atheism')."

(*The above excerpted from "Carl Sagan Denied Being an Atheist. So, What Did He Believe? [Part 1]," by Joel Achenbach, "Washington Post," 10 July 2014, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/achenblog/wp/2014/07/10/carl-sagan-denied-being-an-atheist-so-what-did-he-believe-part-1/)
_____


This misrepresentation of Sagan on your part has been brought to your attention several times now--and yet you still refuse to address it, not to mention 'fess up to it. You've been caught, "korisnore," and your scientific credibility (such as it is, as well as your personal honesty) have been damaged as a result. Just admit it and quit trying to defend the indefensible. It is only making you look worse--and that's sayin something, given that you've been doing a pretty good job as it is making yourself look pretty damn bad.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 05:40PM by steve benson.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't misrepresent myself.
> I don't believe in the God of Abraham, but I do
> believe in the god of Buddhism, Taoism,
> Confuscianism, Stoicism and Epicureanism, only I
> spell it, nature.
> I'm not an Atheist, for the same reasons Einstein,
> Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Epicurus, Aurelius
> and the Dalai Lama are not Atheists, reasons I've
> enumerated numerous times, here.

And there you go again.
Sigh.

Belief in (eg) dark matter, does not change my life

I am not required to pay 10% for the privilege of watching a TED talk on Dark matter.

If a new, better theory is postulated and accepted, I have no emotional ties that will make me a 'dark-matter-believer-for-life'.

If a new theory comes along, I am not going to petition my government and demand they ignore science in favour of an outdated hypothesis

I reject your comparison of scientific 'belief' and religious belief



frankly, I was getting pretty sick of your threads on atheism, and now you tell us you were just crying wolf.
you know what happened to the little boy who cried wolf?

{spoiler alert, i think you're going to get eaten by a wolf}

Whatever.

p(A)rticle of Faith: Religiously Contorting Science to Try and Explain the Higgs Boson . . .


Before getting into how religionists are yet again trying to force their monkey-wrenching myths into the machinery of science, let's draw the issue in basic terms.

Here's my take on the nature of the Higgs boson subatomic particle and what was actually involved in its discovery. (It's a drawing that one reader asked me to explain, confessing that they didn't understand it but thought it was "atheistic"):

http://i.azcentral.com/i/1/E/E/PHP4FF6294324EE1.jpg


For those who may be further interested, here's an animation explanation of how the Higgs Boson operates:

(“An Animated Explanation of the Higgs Boson Subatomic Particle,” by Scott Beale, 4 July 2012, at: http://laughingsquid.com/an-animated-explanation-of-the-higgs-boson-subatomic-particle/)
_____


But enough of the cartoons. Let's deal with the joke of believers attempting to wrap the Higgs boson in superstitious jibberish.

--Higgs Boson and "God": No Match Made in Heaven

In an article entitled, “Why Scientists Hate 'The God Particle,'” a commendable attempt is made to explain the science of it all to those who apparently want to muddle it with their own favored brands of religious ridiculousness:

“Scientists are thrilled about the Higgs boson. But many of them are sick of that term 'The God Particle.'

“Scientists claim they have discovered the Higgs boson, also called the 'God particle,' that could help explain what gives all matter in the universe size and shape.

“Scottish physicist Peter Higgs and other scientists predicted in the 1960s that particles interact with one subatomic particle, called the Higgs boson or the 'God Particle.' Scientists are calling the discovery 'Higgs-like,' a key to understanding why there is diversity and life in the universe, according to 'The New York Times'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/science/cern-physicists-may-have-discovered-higgs-boson-particle.html?_r=1&hp


“Higgs has said he objected to the 'God particle' label because he 'worries that the title “might offend people who are religious.' The 2008 interview with 'New Scientist' . . . does not explain what he feels might be offensive about the connection, whether there was something inherently contradictory between what scientists believe to be the universe's origins with what those who are religious would believe, connected specifically to the boson. A similar idea was repeated in 'The Guardian,' linking the term to another physicist, who intended something completely different for the name:

“'Its theistic nickname was coined by Nobel-prize winning physicist Leon Lederman, but Higgs himself is no fan of the label. "I find it embarrassing because, though I'm not a believer myself, I think it is the kind of misuse of terminology which I think might offend some people.'

“'It wasn't even Lederman's choice. He wanted to refer to it as that '[g--d---] particle' and his editor wouldn't let him,” says Higgs.'

“Lederman's own book 'The God Particle' uses the same line 'This boson is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet to elusive, that I have given it a nickname: “The God Particle." Why “God Particle?” Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the “[G--d---] Particle,” though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one . . . '

“'And then he writes about the story of the Tower of Babel and the "curious intellectual stress" it illustrates.

“'In an interview with NPR, Victoria Martin, a lecturer in physics and astronomy at the University of Edinburgh and a former student of Higgs, explained why scientists don't like the “God Particle" term.

“'SIEGEL: I want to ask you about this particle's nickname, the "God particle." What did Higgs, who've I've read is an atheist, think about the nickname the "God particle"?

“'MARTIN: I'm sure--I actually haven't ever asked him this directly, but I'm sure he doesn't like it. Almost all particle physicists detest that name. . . .

“'So the name stuck and I think it's fine because then people know what we're talking about. But secretly, all of us hate the name, the "God particle."'

“'Science writer Dennis Overbye, who covered Wednesday's news, wrote a fascinating essay for the “New York Times”in 2007 on the challenge of inserting (or not inserting) God into science writing, particularly when writing about the "God Particle."

“'Last week a reader accused me of trying to attract religiously inclined readers by throwing out “God meat” for them.

“'It was not the first time that I had been accused of using religion to sell science. Or was it using science to sell religion?

“”My guide in all of this, of course, the biggest name-dropper in science, is Albert Einstein, who mentioned God often enough that one could imagine he and the 'Old One' had a standing date for coffee or tennis. To wit: “The Lord is subtle, but malicious he is not."

“'. . . I wouldn’t dream of depriving any future Einstein of his or her rhetorical or metaphorical tools'"

“'Here's how the “Associated Press” explains the scientific discovery:

“'The Higgs boson, which until now has been a theoretical particle, is seen as the key to understanding why matter has mass, which combines with gravity to give an object weight. The idea is much like gravity and Isaac Newton's discovery of it: Gravity was there all the time before Newton explained it. But now scientists have seen something very much like the Higgs boson and can put that knowledge to further use.

“'CERN's atom smasher, the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider on the Swiss-French border, has been creating high-energy collisions of protons to investigate dark matter, antimatter and the creation of the universe, which many theorize occurred in a massive explosion known as the Big Bang.'

“'A “Sydney Morning Herald” piece collects the jokes:

“'A Higgs boson walks into a church, according to one joke which did the rounds. "We don't allow Higgs bosons in here!" shouts the priest. "But without me, how can you have mass?" asks the particle.'

“'The “Christianity Today” July/August cover story will be on 'The Tale of Two Scientists: They agree about the scientific method--but not about what happened ‘in the beginning.’

“Sarah Pulliam Bailey summarizes the history of the term and how scientists (including Peter Higgs) aren’t fans of the misleading term:

“. . . The nickname is silly now, anyway. Unlike god, we now have pretty solid evidence that the Higgs boson actually exists.”

(“Why Scientists Hate ‘The God Particle,’” by Hemant Mehta, 5 July 2012, at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/05/why-scientists-hate-the-god-particle-2/; see also, "Why Scientists Don't Like the Term 'God Particle' for the Higgs Boson," by Sarah Pulliam Bailey, in "Christianity Today," at:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2012/07/why-scientists-dont-like-the-term-god-particle-for-the-higgs-boson.html)

**********


When it comes to the Higgs boson, whaddya say we leave "God" out of it and instead put Facts into it?

What a concept.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2015 07:54PM by steve benson.

for good reason.
Now scientists are sorry scientist Leon Lederman named it what he did?
If they have a more descriptive name to call it, perhaps they should win a Nobel Prize and then write a book with that name.
I'm not promoting the 'God' myth.
Nor am I a 'theist'.
I'm just NOT an atheist.
Hopefully that's ok with Mormon Royalty.
I don't really identify myself in terms I reject, nor do I choose to represent myself in terms that are negative.
I prefer affirmative terms that describe what I really am.
Personally the only term I like is Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
The closest I come philosophically it probably Epicurus, who developed non-deterministic atomic theory, 300 years before Christ, along with the Ethic of Reciprocity and the 4 Part Cure. The first part is,
Don't fear the Gods, for they are not real.
I don't fear the Gods and I know they're not real.
But the word, God is real and it's pretty ubiquitous.
Like on every penny and dollar you earn or spend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 02:24PM by koriwhore.

I believe the word 'God' is a wholly inadequate word we use to try to describe what is a vast mystery to all of us, like what we now call 'dark matter/energy', 'God Particle', 'The Great Attractor', 'Black Holes', which makes up the vast majority of our universe. Other people have used other names I much prefer to describe the numinous, mysterious genius behind the genius inherent in nature, like Logos and Tao.
As a Zen Dudeist, I prefer Tao aka Zen.

This is a basic point which you either choose to ignore or cannot seem to grasp. It is a coined term that has been employed for public consumption--and is, in some definite respects, media-driven and -encouraged. It is not a scientific term by any stretch of your desperate and delusional imagination:

"Why 'God Particle?' Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn’t let us call it the “[G--d---] Particle,” though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing. And two, there is a connection, of sorts, to another book, a much older one . . . '

Even Higgs himself objects to the term, for his own reasons:

“Higgs has said he objected to the 'God particle' label because he 'worries that the title “might offend people who are religious.' The 2008 interview with 'New Scientist' . . . does not explain what he feels might be offensive about the connection, whether there was something inherently contradictory between what scientists believe to be the universe's origins with what those who are religious would believe, connected specifically to the boson. A similar idea was repeated in 'The Guardian,' linking the term to another physicist, who intended something completely different for the name."
_____


"korisnore," are you deliberately deceptive or simply comprehension-impaired?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 05:37PM by steve benson.

Did you get you apologist tactics from Dan Peterson?
You're attacking me personally. I'm not attacking you, at all. I'm being respectful.
I appreciate you engaging with me but please, let's not pretend either one of us is the ultimate expert in the God Particle, even though we both read the book by that name.
But it is the greatest scientific discovery since e=mc2'd,
And the author did choose that name for a specific reason you failed to include in your quote, the second reason, because of its monumental significance.
Because it explains how matter is created, through other quantum particles spinning through it.
All I'm saying us I think there's no need for the God Myth as you say, when we got pictures of the God Particle and it's a lot like what you'd expect, if you are Peter Higgs 50 yrs ago.
What I'm saying us we don't disagree except in philosophical approach.
Steve if you were king of the world would your kingdom be an Atheist state?
Any examples from history if such a state?
What about a state that had no religion, like what state in history?
Me I'm all for a state like Ancient Rome under the last if the good Emperors of Rome, the Stoics, with a Philosopher King, the wisest of wise men, as a strong, meditative leader, like Marcus Auerelius.
Unfortunately few men these days capable if being Philosopher Kings.
Who do you believe us the wisest of wise men, living or dead?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 05:58PM by koriwhore.

Sorry if that sounds personal to you, but you personally need to improve your game.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2015 01:48AM by steve benson.

Steve if you were king of the world would your kingdom be an Atheist state?
Any examples from history if such a state?

Wait, that's an insult to Satan.

(Maybe I could try to insult you by comparing you to Dan Peterson, like you compared me to him. You hypocrite. There, that's my insult).



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2015 06:10AM by steve benson.

You can replace any English word you like with another word. The French have been doing it for years. They just don't bang on about it so much.

If you have a testimony of Higgs-Boson do you have burning of the Boson?

The mass joke was great. :)

why don't you tell us which gods you are agnostic about.

Blame it on the Bosonova.

With it's magic spell.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2015 03:33PM by Shummy.

I really really really like these exchanges.

We are here to recover from Mormonism.

In a think tank brainstorming session there are no wrong answers.

Here neither. Let's everybody be free to express themselves as they see it without FEAR OF RETRIBUTION.

>>without FEAR OF RETRIBUTION.

What a concept.

But not without FEAR OF REDISTRIBUTION. I may need this post later....Just kidding.