In a thread that closed before I had a chance to answer a question Saucie asked me....

Re: Do atheists think they know more about the Cosmos than Carl Sagan?

"As I'm sure you already know Kori.... Atheists have no

designated spokesman to answer questions for all of them,

so my question to you is why do you ask unanswerable

questions of Atheists? Is it a personal vendetta? Why

do you do it?"

No I don't have a personal vendetta against atheists. I love atheists. Most of my ExMo family and friends are atheists. My partner is a neverMo atheist.
I might be an atheist if I thought I knew far more about the Cosmos than Carl Sagan, who famously said, "An atheist would have to know far more about the Cosmos than me."
But since I realize I don't know near as much about the Cosmos as Carl Sagan did when he was alive, I don't call myself an atheist.
I just don't like echo chambers and sometimes this place sounds like an echo chamber full of atheists shouting down, insulting and personally attacking anybody who isn't an atheist, like me. I just don't like labels, which is the same reason Einstein didn't identify as an atheist and the same reason Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sam Harris and Bill Nye don't identify as atheists. They don't like anybody telling them how they have to think, because of their religious identification, so they choose "None of the above." or "agnostic" instead.
I also think it's unfortunate that so many exMo's tend to think like my ExMo Atheist sister who says, "Hey, if Mormonism is not true, then all religion is complete bullshit."
To me that's too absolute.

I think it's all relative.

Some religions (the more dogmatic ones, like MORmONism) are more delusional (in denial of reality) than others (the less dogmatic ones, like Buddhism).
I'm not a Buddhist, but of all the world religions, it probably comes closest to what Einstein called "A Cosmic Religion of the Future"

“The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description.” Albert Einstein

"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot (1994)

I'm with Sagan,

“A new concept of god: “something not very different from the sum total of the physical laws of the universe; that is, gravitation plus quantum mechanics plus grand unified field theories plus a few other things equaled god. And by that all they meant was that here were a set of exquisitely powerful physical principles that seemed to explain a great deal that was otherwise inexplicable about the universe. Laws of nature…that apply not just locally, not just in Glasgow, but far beyond: Edinburgh, Moscow…Mars…the center of the Milky Way, and out by the most distant quarters known. That the same laws of physics apply everywhere is quite remarkable. Certainly that represents a power greater than any of us.”

― Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God

So... You're upset with the atheists for being all shouty here and your response is to promote more shouty?

I'm having to guess because I didn't see a declarative statement that started with, "Saucie, I repeatedly ask unanswerable (rhetorical) questions here because ..."

Mi Vida... you can be my sock puppet any day.... because

Im a fan of yours.... I do hearby grant you the privlege...

CAlling all sock puppets ....

Mi vida... why is he bringing up my stuff? Why didn't he answer when I originally inquired. Or wait, does Kori have a sock puppet?

Never confuse your sock puppet with the sock you use for taffy pulling.

You're nothing if not predictable.

More name dropping appeal to authority fallacy.
And as EOD pointed out, nothing that explains the "why" in the title, either.

In answer to your question, it was a very nice moon.

PS: I'm not really elderolddog'ssockpuppet.

I'm Hie'ssockuppet.

Okay, okay. I'm really just Lot's Wife.

It was, however, a nice moon.

And, more seriously, I appreciate greatly the efforts of another board member to associate me with EOD and Saucie, two people whose wit and wisdom have touched me for many years.

It's an honor to be in such company!

Awww, for a minute there I thought I had a sockpuppet!

It was a nice moon, wasn't it? :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Awww, for a minute there I thought I had a
> sockpuppet!
>
> It was a nice moon, wasn't it? :)


Hey luv... I'll be your sock puppet anyday... free of charge.

<blush>

:)

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And, more seriously, I appreciate greatly the
> efforts of another board member to associate me
> with EOD and Saucie, two people whose wit and
> wisdom have touched me for many years.
>
> It's an honor to be in such company!


We love you Lot's wife... we think you're great.

You know Kori... if I ask you a question , I just gotta warn you,
I lose interest if it takes more than one paragraph to answer me.


Thats just the way I work ....... Oh wait.... Are you not really Kori, but you're Kori's sock puppet? I'm getting so confused.

You do not ask questions. You make insulting remarks disguised as questions.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You do not ask questions. You make insulting
> remarks disguised as questions.


"Do atheists think they know more about the Cosmos than Carl Sagan?" is serious question, yet out of 50+ responses, nobody really bothered answering it. I know I don't think I'm more knowledgeble about the cosmos than the guy who wrote the book, hence the reason I don't ID myself as an atheist. I can't rule out the existence of any and all forms of what we might consider 'god'. IOW, I think it's entirely possible that a sufficiently advanced alien species could meet all the requirements of a God.

Did you not notice the question mark?

A "rhetorical question" is by definition "a question not intended to require an answer" or one that is asked "to make a point rather than to get an answer."

That's the solution to the paradox. People don't reply to your inquiries because they are, as you note, rhetorical.

When you irrationally imply that an extremely diverse group of people might be all of the same mind and motivation because they have atheist self identities in common, it's not a serious question. It's just you preaching your wacky non-contextual interpretations of taologosgodparticlewithouttheparticlebigdickofMin.

taologosgodparticlewithouttheparticlebigdickofMin.com is available!

Dammit, I just spewed M&Ms all over my computer screen.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think I'm more knowledgeble
> about the cosmos than the guy who wrote the book,
> hence the reason I don't ID myself as an atheist.

I'm more knowledgeable about the cosmos than Carl Sagan.
That's not bragging, just a simple fact.
See, Carl died 22 years ago. In the past 22 years, we've learned a *lot* about the cosmos -- and I keep up with what we're learning. So I know more about the cosmos than Carl ever did -- because we learn something new every day about the cosmos.

Here's the other thing, and it's something with which Carl would have wholeheartedly agreed: Just because Carl expresses an opinion (like the quote-mined ones you keep posting) doesn't mean it's the only right opinion. Or right at all. Or wrong. Carl worked by the scientific method, not by opinions -- even i the opinions came from famous people or scientists.

Frankly, I think if he were still alive, he'd point out your fallacious appeals to authority, tell you to stop quoting him and pretending his opinions were the be-all and end-all of everything, and tell you to go make up your own mind by facts and evidence instead of fawning all over famous people's beliefs. 'Cause that's how he rolled.

OP, why are you on here just to argue and to be rude? If nobody's answer makes you happy, why don't you just answer your own questions and respond to your own statements? Is this helping anyone's recovery from mormonism? You are trying to appear as a know it all, but you just need some inner dialog.

"I might be an atheist if I thought I knew far more about the Cosmos than Carl Sagan, who famously said, "An atheist would have to know far more about the Cosmos than me."
But since I realize I don't know near as much about the Cosmos as Carl Sagan did when he was alive, I don't call myself an atheist."

Seems like a rather complicated rationale to me. How about you just don't call yourself an atheist and leave everyone else alone?....meaning stop the rhetorical questions and demanding an answer that satisfies only YOU.

Just something to consider.

+ infinity.

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> + infinity.

LOLOLOLOLOL! Gotta love it!

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I might be an atheist if I thought I knew far
> more about the Cosmos than Carl Sagan, who
> famously said, "An atheist would have to know far
> more about the Cosmos than me."
> But since I realize I don't know near as much
> about the Cosmos as Carl Sagan did when he was
> alive, I don't call myself an atheist."
>
> Seems like a rather complicated rationale to me.
> How about you just don't call yourself an atheist
> and leave everyone else alone?....meaning stop the
> rhetorical questions and demanding an answer that
> satisfies only YOU.
>
> Just something to consider.

For the same reasons Sam Harris doesn't leave Atheists alone,
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-problem-with-atheism

He's kinda tired of people telling him how he needs to think if he doesn't buy into the whole Santa Claus in the sky idea.
So am I.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2018 08:06PM by koriwhore.

It makes good sense to mr that at this juncture, no one here cares how or what you think and wishes you felt the same towards us.

I do.

I've always been a big fan of people asking questions.

It drove my mormon friends crazy back in the 80's.

Glad to see some are finally catching up.

To be clear, was it you asking real questions?

If it was, were you expecting answers, or attempts at answers?

Kori seems to be punitive in his actions, in that he hints he's getting even...

Anyway, thanks for playing Bed Time For Bonzo!

Jack, what do we have for our guest?

It was me asking questions. Of course I expected answers. I was dumbfounded my questions were met with such disdain. Over time it made sense

And you can't see that Kori doesn't really want OUR answers?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you can't see that Kori doesn't really want
> OUR answers?
Thats 100% bullshit.

wow! 100%? Dang!

Except you have never demonstrated any interest in answers that differ from your preconceived notions.

Sorry EOD, that is for KW.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/2018 10:04AM by jacob.

I think he’s trying to answer his own questions in part by probing others.

Perhaps you could use the search function to go back in time to review Kori's posting history to see if that did anything to your views on the matter?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To be clear, was it you asking real questions?
>
> If it was, were you expecting answers, or attempts
> at answers?
>
> Kori seems to be punitive in his actions, in that
> he hints he's getting even...
>
> Anyway, thanks for playing Bed Time For Bonzo!
>
> Jack, what do we have for our guest?


A big steaming bowl of jack squat with flies buzzing around it! Mmmm

I was just answering Saucies question.
So far one atheist has answered my question and apparently they believe they have figured out more about tge Cosmos than the guy who wrote the book on the subject, literally.
I can hardly wait for the ExMo version of the Cosmos that makes Sagan look like an idiot.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2018 09:54PM by koriwhore.

You didn't notice the lonely echo?

Its the echo chamber that drives me to want to stir the pot and ask questions.
I much prefer discussing existentialism as opposed to what a biggot lil Tommy Monsanto was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2018 09:58PM by koriwhore.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I much prefer discussing existentialism...

Does this mean you're going to move on from SpinozaEinsteinSaganTyson and start representing KierkegaardSartreCamusNietzsche?

How does the God particle fit in?

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I much prefer discussing existentialism...
>
> Does this mean you're going to move on from
> SpinozaEinsteinSaganTyson and start representing
> KierkegaardSartreCamusNietzsche?

Michio Kaku

>
> How does the God particle fit in?

https://youtu.be/jI50HN0Kshg



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2018 10:48PM by koriwhore.

So, no existentialism then?

I had hoped we were moving on, but I guess we're just adding another authority to appeal to.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its the echo chamber that drives me to want to
> stir the pot and ask questions.
> I much prefer discussing existentialism as opposed
> to what a biggot lil Tommy Monsanto was.


So, you like to mess with people! By the way, it's bigot, not biggot. Learn to spell.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was just answering Saucies question.
> So far one atheist has answered my question and
> apparently they believe they have figured out more
> about tge Cosmos than the guy who wrote the book
> on the subject, literally.
> I can hardly wait for the ExMo version of the
> Cosmos that makes Sagan look like an idiot.

Human knowledge has marched on without Carl.
Carl didn't have any hidden knowledge about the universe, he shared what he learned and learned from others, contributing to the knowledge base of humans. Anybody who kept up with what we were learning in Carl's time, including Carl, knew more than Einstein did about the universe.

In the past 20 years, Carl has learned *nothing* about the universe. 'Cause Carl no longer exists. Meanwhile, humans have learned a lot more than anybody, including Carl, knew in Carl's time. Anybody who keeps up with what we learn knows more than Carl did. Anybody with access to the web or a library can know more about the universe than Carl did. You're so big on the Higgs boson (which you insist on calling a 'god') -- Carl didn't know if it existed. You do. So does the rest of humanity. So we all know more than Carl did.

In 20 years, if I've died by then, there will be billions of humans who will know more about the universe than I do now. Or than anyone else does now.

Knowledge isn't about the personalities of particular people, it's about what all of us can and do know using the scientific method. Your dogged insistence on trying to associate yourself with famous smart people is not only fallacious, it misses the point entirely.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the same reasons Sam Harris doesn't leave
> Atheists alone,
> https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-problem-wi
> th-atheism

One speech from 11 years ago is "not leaving atheists alone?"

> He's kinda tired of people telling him how he
> needs to think if he doesn't buy into the whole
> Santa Claus in the sky idea.
> So am I.

And one that doesn't express at all the idea you said it did above?

Sam at least makes some sense. And doesn't continually name-drop famous people's quote-mined statements to make it look like he's "deep."

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For the same reasons Sam Harris doesn't leave
> > Atheists alone,
> >
> https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-problem-wi
>
> > th-atheism
>
> One speech from 11 years ago is "not leaving
> atheists alone?"
>
> > He's kinda tired of people telling him how he
> > needs to think if he doesn't buy into the whole
> > Santa Claus in the sky idea.
> > So am I.
>
> And one that doesn't express at all the idea you
> said it did above?
>
> Sam at least makes some sense. And doesn't
> continually name-drop famous people's quote-mined
> statements to make it look like he's "deep."

That speech was him killing the "New Atheist Movement".
He gave 20 reasons why identifying ones self as an atheist is a bad idea. I agree with him 100%.
So far I have yet to see an atheist respond to any of Sams 20 reasons intelligently.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, is the one who said he was tired of crusading Atheists, like Dawkins, trying to pin their atheist label upon him.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That speech was him killing the "New Atheist
> Movement".

And yet, it's not dead. How about that.

> He gave 20 reasons why identifying ones self as an
> atheist is a bad idea. I agree with him 100%.

So still no original ideas then, huh? Sad.

> So far I have yet to see an atheist respond to any
> of Sams 20 reasons intelligently.

Hundreds (thousands?) have. I suspect you haven't bothered to look.
He makes some good points. He makes some bad points. I have personally, in fact, "responded intelligently" to some of his bad points here, and directly to you. As I said above, I suspect you haven't bothered to read them.

> Neil deGrasse Tyson, is the one who said he was
> tired of crusading Atheists, like Dawkins, trying
> to pin their atheist label upon him.

How nice for him.
Guess what? He's still an atheist. Whether he likes the term or not.

You seem to continually confuse public relations with facts.
I'd work on that if I were you.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That speech was him killing the "New Atheist
> > Movement".
>
> And yet, it's not dead. How about that.
>
> > He gave 20 reasons why identifying ones self as
> an
> > atheist is a bad idea. I agree with him 100%.
>
> So still no original ideas then, huh? Sad.
>
> > So far I have yet to see an atheist respond to
> any
> > of Sams 20 reasons intelligently.
>
> Hundreds (thousands?) have. I suspect you haven't
> bothered to look.
> He makes some good points. He makes some bad
> points. I have personally, in fact, "responded
> intelligently" to some of his bad points here, and
> directly to you. As I said above, I suspect you
> haven't bothered to read them.
>
> > Neil deGrasse Tyson, is the one who said he was
> > tired of crusading Atheists, like Dawkins,
> trying
> > to pin their atheist label upon him.
>
> How nice for him.
> Guess what? He's still an atheist. Whether he
> likes the term or not.
>
> You seem to continually confuse public relations
> with facts.
> I'd work on that if I were you.

Please explain the difference between "New Atheism" and "Atheism".

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please explain the difference between "New
> Atheism" and "Atheism".

I don't think there is any.

Some popular press writers, though, do.
They consider "new atheism" (atheism isn't capitalized) to be "outspoken atheism." That is, instead of atheists sitting in the closet hiding for fear of public shame, they speak up, file lawsuits against illegal intrusions of religion in government, they write books and give speeches, etc.

Whatever. It's a made-up term anyway.

Koriwhore says the purpose of his OP was to answer Saucie's question. But neither that post nor any of his subsequent ones have done so.

Koriwhore asserts that he wants us to answer his "rhetorical" questions, ignoring the fact that rhetorical questions by definition are not designed to elicit answers.

Koriwhore states that he wants "atheists" to stop behaving monolithically but, as demonstrated in Richard Foxe's thread, the atheists on this site are anything but monolithic.

Koriwhore writes that he agrees 100% with Harris, but has apparently not read the article--or, no better, failed to understand it.

Silence follows two different sorts of argument: one that leaves everyone stunned and angry, or one that is so banal as to inspire no reaction.

Mr. Whore doesn't ask questions. He pontificates in unsupported absolutes.

Koriwhore wrote....

"He's kinda tired of people telling him how he needs to think if he doesn't buy into the whole Santa Claus in the sky idea.
So am I."

I think you are confusing disagreement with what you think as being told what you need to think.....and then milking it for all its worth on the BB.

No one is posting along the lines of "Koriwhore needs to think like this or that or agree with my thinking".

You start the whole thing with a rhetorical question, posed as an astute observation of behavior, thinking, etc....then claim others are telling you what to think when they think something different.

I can't honestly see what you after in doing this, other than the comotion it causes and the attention it gets you.

Maybe you should change you name from Koriwhore to "Attentionwhore".

Just something to consider :)

Time and time again it has been pointed out that your authoritative opinions are based on authoritative opinions. And while I respect the opinions of many respectable people I also understand them for what they are, opinions.

As for your buddy Carl he makes a perfectly reasonable argument, just not the one that you think he is making. Soup to nuts his statement is that authoritative opinions on this matter are suspect. The simple lack of any quantifiable data disqualifies definitive statements. By my estimation Carl isn't saying that he believes or disbelieves god he is saying that he doesn't have any data to back up either stance.

And finally, personally speaking, I feel that your constant trolling is super diverting and I want you to continue. I've learned more from those responding to you than I might otherwise have it you hadn't posted.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And finally, personally speaking, I feel that your
> constant trolling is super diverting and I want
> you to continue. I've learned more from those
> responding to you than I might otherwise have it
> you hadn't posted.

Atta boy, jacob -- lemonade from lemons!
Great attitude :)

I personally care about Carl Sagan's opinion on spiritual matters to about the same degree that I care about some celebrity's opinion about politics. It's just an opinion of one more human being. Why should it count more than my opinion?

Once, long ago, I was interviewing a potential roommate. Normally religion did not come up in these conversations, but for whatever reason that day it did. I must have been talking about my Catholic upbringing, and I asked her about her upbringing. And she simply stated that she was raised without religion, which was fine. I liked the way she put it. Religion was just not a factor in her own personal life. And I think that can be a very hard concept for believers to grasp, that for some people, religion and/or belief in a god is just not a factor.

Don't feed the trolls.

Unless you want to.