Comments for Agnostic Universe http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog Agnostic Universe Blog - Unknown IS the Answer Thu, 03 May 2012 23:58:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 Comment on Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic? by Norman Lycan http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2012/04/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic/comment-page-1/#comment-2528 Norman Lycan Thu, 03 May 2012 23:58:54 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=855#comment-2528 I actually joined Twitter so I could tell Mr Tyson that he was "strumming my heart with his fingers, singing my life with his words", but, what I found was fifty tweets a second, asking questions about astrophyics. Every one answered. Somewhere there is any entire gymnasium of students with pc's pretending to be Mr. Tyson. It's okay, I guess that's how the world works now. I finally found a window where I could actually send a tweet to that address, and congratulated him on his agnostic freethought. But, I didn't even watch for an answer. It would be like phone sex. Somewhere out there that message exists in the ether, I hope he recieved it. NL I actually joined Twitter so I could tell Mr Tyson that he was “strumming my heart with his fingers, singing my life with his words”, but, what I found was fifty tweets a second, asking questions about astrophyics. Every one answered. Somewhere there is any entire gymnasium of students with pc’s pretending to be Mr. Tyson. It’s okay, I guess that’s how the world works now. I finally found a window where I could actually send a tweet to that address, and congratulated him on his agnostic freethought. But, I didn’t even watch for an answer. It would be like phone sex. Somewhere out there that message exists in the ether, I hope he recieved it.

NL

]]> Comment on Militant Agnostics and Atheists by R. http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/12/18/militant-agnostics-and-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-2504 R. Wed, 02 May 2012 05:41:27 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=847#comment-2504 First post I've read here, and I really like it! And yet... the motto or slogan of your blog reads, "Unknown IS the answer." First post I’ve read here, and I really like it! And yet… the motto or slogan of your blog reads, “Unknown IS the answer.”

]]> Comment on Neil deGrasse Tyson: Atheist or Agnostic? by Norman Lycan http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2012/04/29/neil-degrasse-tyson-atheist-or-agnostic/comment-page-1/#comment-2490 Norman Lycan Tue, 01 May 2012 02:40:36 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=855#comment-2490 Jeff, I have been on several atheist blogs since last we/you spoke/ wrote. Same old story, I'm a troll and a fundie. It seems like real freethinkers are so rare, that we can never win. Or so it would seem. The person you just quoted on video is one of the most renouned astrophysists on the planet. But first Richard Dawkins writes a book called the "god delusion" and of the seven levels he named of belief in atheism, he called himself a six. Then he tells Bill Mahre he's a nine out of ten because he cannot prove farries don't exist. I took that as an insult. No, the issue is NOT whether can disprove ridiculous myth, it's whether or not you can pretend to prove the universe is an accident. And it may be, but, show me the proof before you ask me to believe!!! That's all I ask, but in their world it makes me a troll and a fundy. I want to open their eyes, because, by opening their eyes, I might save the world for my children. While atheists are not freethinkers, even though they think they own the word, they are the closest cousin in our family. They are opinionated pricks as a whole, but, do you think we need to win their frienship in order to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. Or is humanity already doomed? Jeff,

I have been on several atheist blogs since last we/you spoke/ wrote. Same old story, I’m a troll and a fundie. It seems like real freethinkers are so rare, that we can never win. Or so it would seem. The person you just quoted on video is one of the most renouned astrophysists on the planet.

But first Richard Dawkins writes a book called the “god delusion” and of the seven levels he named of belief in atheism, he called himself a six. Then he tells Bill Mahre he’s a nine out of ten because he cannot prove farries don’t exist. I took that as an insult. No, the issue is NOT whether can disprove ridiculous myth, it’s whether or not you can pretend to prove the universe is an accident. And it may be, but, show me the proof before you ask me to believe!!! That’s all I ask, but in their world it makes me a troll and a fundy. I want to open their eyes, because, by opening their eyes, I might save the world for my children.

While atheists are not freethinkers, even though they think they own the word, they are the closest cousin in our family. They are opinionated pricks as a whole, but, do you think we need to win their frienship in order to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. Or is humanity already doomed?

]]> Comment on A Message From God by sammy http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/12/04/a-message-from-god/comment-page-1/#comment-2379 sammy Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:26:41 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=842#comment-2379 O.K. Norman we useless Christians will be praying for you anyway!!! O.K. Norman we useless Christians will be praying for you anyway!!!

]]> Comment on Militant Agnostics and Atheists by Norman Lycan http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/12/18/militant-agnostics-and-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-2008 Norman Lycan Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:05:05 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=847#comment-2008 I certainly get your point, Jeff, but, that was not your best work. For example you said: "An atheist could believe so much in their rejection of belief that their militant behavior and insistence on disbelief could be fought for with the same misguided passion as the militant believers." That sentence is an oxymoron, as the cartoon proves. Atheists acuse agnostic of having their head in the sand, which one can rightly interpret as a failure to adopt their "belief", i.e., that the universe is an accident. A premise which as equally unsupported by science as is Noah and the flood. Now lets talk about atheist militants. I have to agree, that a cleansing of society of religion by force would have unintended consequences on a disastrous scale. Carl Marx, Stalin, the procession of Chinese communist regimes. At the same time, I agree with Carl Marx, that religion is the "opium of the masses", but their is no military solution, just educational solutions. You cannot unbrainwash the present generation, you can only educate the next. The real point, though, in conclusion, is atheism is a religion, as much as christianity or islam. And they should, therefore, be portrayed as the head in the sand. And, we agnostics, should be portrayed as we are right now, our hands on the keyboard, denouncing the violence on both sides. I certainly get your point, Jeff, but, that was not your best work. For example you said:
“An atheist could believe so much in their rejection of belief that their militant behavior and insistence on disbelief could be fought for with the same misguided passion as the militant believers.”
That sentence is an oxymoron, as the cartoon proves. Atheists acuse agnostic of having their head in the sand, which one can rightly interpret as a failure to adopt their “belief”, i.e., that the universe is an accident. A premise which as equally unsupported by science as is Noah and the flood.
Now lets talk about atheist militants. I have to agree, that a cleansing of society of religion by force would have unintended consequences on a disastrous scale. Carl Marx, Stalin, the procession of Chinese communist regimes. At the same time, I agree with Carl Marx, that religion is the “opium of the masses”, but their is no military solution, just educational solutions. You cannot unbrainwash the present generation, you can only educate the next.
The real point, though, in conclusion, is atheism is a religion, as much as christianity or islam. And they should, therefore, be portrayed as the head in the sand. And, we agnostics, should be portrayed as we are right now, our hands on the keyboard, denouncing the violence on both sides.

]]> Comment on Militant Agnostics and Atheists by John Wylie http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/12/18/militant-agnostics-and-atheists/comment-page-1/#comment-1910 John Wylie Tue, 24 Jan 2012 04:47:26 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=847#comment-1910 I appreciate your tolerance and moderation. You might be interested in my blog, apesandantsandancestors.wordpress.com - john I appreciate your tolerance and moderation. You might be interested in my blog, apesandantsandancestors.wordpress.com – john

]]> Comment on An Agnostic Creator Hypothesis by Norman Lycan http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/06/06/an-agnostic-creator-hypothesis/comment-page-1/#comment-1888 Norman Lycan Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:41:46 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=804#comment-1888 While myths of many civilizations claim that various gods exerted their wills upon many stories of human heroism and destruction, the bottom line is that religion has been the source of psuedo leaders, appointing themselves as intermediaries between god and man. Their purpose was not to enlighten us in the absense of science, it was to enslave us with religious brainwash. It is the difference between religious mythology and scientific fact that sets freethinkers free. One is intended to enslave the mind, the other to free the mind to reality, math, reason. One would capitalize on your fear of death, which is coming regardless, the other would appeal to you sense of reason. But, can your sense of reason be seduced to believe the universe exploded out of nothing? In the absense of evidence, "I don't know" is the only sane response. Agnostics are the genuine freethinkers. NL While myths of many civilizations claim that various gods exerted their wills upon many stories of human heroism and destruction, the bottom line is that religion has been the source of psuedo leaders, appointing themselves as intermediaries between god and man. Their purpose was not to enlighten us in the absense of science, it was to enslave us with religious brainwash. It is the difference between religious mythology and scientific fact that sets freethinkers free. One is intended to enslave the mind, the other to free the mind to reality, math, reason. One would capitalize on your fear of death, which is coming regardless, the other would appeal to you sense of reason. But, can your sense of reason be seduced to believe the universe exploded out of nothing? In the absense of evidence, “I don’t know” is the only sane response. Agnostics are the genuine freethinkers.

NL

]]> Comment on Let Me Rephrase That… by Norman Lycan http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/06/19/let-me-rephrase-that/comment-page-1/#comment-1887 Norman Lycan Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:53:58 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=811#comment-1887 I disagree with you. As an unbeliever, I used to caucus with atheists. As you imply, some are like us, agnostics, who choose to lean toward atheism because it discounts religious mythology. The rub that I have encountered over and over again in debates with atheists, is that I am accused of intellectual cowardice, if I fail to acknowledge that the universe is an accident. Some are quite brutal in their criticism. But, the chemical science of our universe is undeniable, as the universe exists right now, something cannot be created out of nothing. The rational theory is that nothing was forced apart into negative and positive. The most plentiful element in the universe is hydrogen, one electron, one proton. Zero ripped in half. Something out of nothing. But, science still must explain the force that ripped zero apart. And there is no reason to believe that that force, whatever it might be, interferes with the random fall of circumstance. Consideration of the eons of life on this planet, how ecosystems have come and disappeared show conclusively that while some force might have set the universe in motion, it does not interfere in the outcome. In fact, on that vein, I could not dismiss the idea that the spark expended his entire being to create the big bang, and now he is dead. Therefore, we alone and adrift. But, that certainly does not make it true. That's why, a real freethinker is neither a creationist nor an atheist. He, she, is person who has the clarity of thought to admit that they do not know. That is honesty, and humility. It is freethought. Norman Lycan I disagree with you. As an unbeliever, I used to caucus with atheists. As you imply, some are like us, agnostics, who choose to lean toward atheism because it discounts religious mythology. The rub that I have encountered over and over again in debates with atheists, is that I am accused of intellectual cowardice, if I fail to acknowledge that the universe is an accident. Some are quite brutal in their criticism. But, the chemical science of our universe is undeniable, as the universe exists right now, something cannot be created out of nothing. The rational theory is that nothing was forced apart into negative and positive. The most plentiful element in the universe is hydrogen, one electron, one proton. Zero ripped in half. Something out of nothing. But, science still must explain the force that ripped zero apart. And there is no reason to believe that that force, whatever it might be, interferes with the random fall of circumstance. Consideration of the eons of life on this planet, how ecosystems have come and disappeared show conclusively that while some force might have set the universe in motion, it does not interfere in the outcome. In fact, on that vein, I could not dismiss the idea that the spark expended his entire being to create the big bang, and now he is dead. Therefore, we alone and adrift. But, that certainly does not make it true. That’s why, a real freethinker is neither a creationist nor an atheist. He, she, is person who has the clarity of thought to admit that they do not know. That is honesty, and humility. It is freethought.

Norman Lycan

]]> Comment on A Message From God by Norman Lycan http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/12/04/a-message-from-god/comment-page-1/#comment-1463 Norman Lycan Thu, 08 Dec 2011 04:38:26 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=842#comment-1463 Jeff, While your quote would really resonate with your typical unbeliever, as it did with me (I am sarcastic about the premise of the knowledge of the ancient gods), it does little, in my opinion, to set agnostism apart as the voice of reason. And, this is why I say that. While it is true that myths like the age of the earth is six thousand years, or that every species on dry land was saved on Noah's Ark are ludicrous, beyond reach of reasonable objective thought, there is a flip side of that coin. And while websites, like this one: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/can_you_get_something_for_noth.php claim that something infinitesimal can be created from nothing, I will quote their disclaimer: "But there are many things we can't do, either practically or theoretically: violate charge or energy conservation, decrease the total entropy of the Universe, or figure out where our initially inflating Universe came from." Chemistry knows that the universe is stable. No matter which chemical reaction occurs, that not one atom is created nor lost. The energy released by dividing elements that exist in compounds, can reunite them if equal energy is reintroduced to the equation. Even nuclear fusion and fision neither creates or destroys anything, It simply releases the energy that previously bound or separated subatomic particles. So, the idea, given our present scientific understanding, that the universe exploded into existence out of nothing, is worthy of suspicion. As well, an objective thinker must also consider the convenience factor. If you were on a jury, which we all are, does it really make sense that not only did our entire unimaginably huge universe explode into existence out of nothing, it also contained the magic seed of, not only life, but of evolution. A self improving machine with no remorse or pity. But, if there are an infinite number of dimensions, across infinite time, and billions of explosions of universes out of nothing, for reasons we don't yet understand, I can certainly concede that our universe, and our world, and our conversation could occur. I'm glad to be here, but, it's been a wild ride. For me, for what it's worth, when I examine what I have learned in my life, a realization dawns upon me. That if there is a creator, a SPARK of life, he planted the seed, then set back in his easy chair to watch what happens. Millions of years of evolution built the dinosaurs. They are gone, and no one is sure why. And that's just recent history. Extrapolating upon those realities, I think one can conclude that praying to the creator about your adultrous daydreams or your late rent is wasted bandwidth. He doesn't even care about global extinctions, let alone your pathetic neurosis. Norman Lycan Jeff,
While your quote would really resonate with your typical unbeliever, as it did with me (I am sarcastic about the premise of the knowledge of the ancient gods), it does little, in my opinion, to set agnostism apart as the voice of reason.
And, this is why I say that. While it is true that myths like the age of the earth is six thousand years, or that every species on dry land was saved on Noah’s Ark are ludicrous, beyond reach of reasonable objective thought, there is a flip side of that coin.
And while websites, like this one: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/02/can_you_get_something_for_noth.php claim that something infinitesimal can be created from nothing, I will quote their disclaimer:
“But there are many things we can’t do, either practically or theoretically: violate charge or energy conservation, decrease the total entropy of the Universe, or figure out where our initially inflating Universe came from.”
Chemistry knows that the universe is stable. No matter which chemical reaction occurs, that not one atom is created nor lost. The energy released by dividing elements that exist in compounds, can reunite them if equal energy is reintroduced to the equation. Even nuclear fusion and fision neither creates or destroys anything, It simply releases the energy that previously bound or separated subatomic particles.
So, the idea, given our present scientific understanding, that the universe exploded into existence out of nothing, is worthy of suspicion. As well, an objective thinker must also consider the convenience factor. If you were on a jury, which we all are, does it really make sense that not only did our entire unimaginably huge universe explode into existence out of nothing, it also contained the magic seed of, not only life, but of evolution. A self improving machine with no remorse or pity.
But, if there are an infinite number of dimensions, across infinite time, and billions of explosions of universes out of nothing, for reasons we don’t yet understand, I can certainly concede that our universe, and our world, and our conversation could occur. I’m glad to be here, but, it’s been a wild ride.
For me, for what it’s worth, when I examine what I have learned in my life, a realization dawns upon me. That if there is a creator, a SPARK of life, he planted the seed, then set back in his easy chair to watch what happens. Millions of years of evolution built the dinosaurs. They are gone, and no one is sure why. And that’s just recent history.
Extrapolating upon those realities, I think one can conclude that praying to the creator about your adultrous daydreams or your late rent is wasted bandwidth. He doesn’t even care about global extinctions, let alone your pathetic neurosis.

Norman Lycan

]]> Comment on Gretchen Whitmer, Michigan Senator, slams new bullying legislation by Norman Lycan http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/2011/11/05/gretchen-whitmer-michigan-senator-slams-new-bullying-legislation/comment-page-1/#comment-1392 Norman Lycan Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:42:05 +0000 http://agnosticuniverse.org/blog/?p=838#comment-1392 Agnostism, the Purest Form of Freethought Ah, freethought. Freethinkers, who are they? Websters says: "one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially: one who doubts or denies religious dogma". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freethinker BUT!!! freedictionary says: "One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and SPECULATION." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freethinker Really? I would define a freethinker as: "Someone who refuses to adopt as belief anything that cannot be convincingly supported by evidence." And that would include all ancient goatherder mythologies: Horace, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Thor, Jehovah, Allah, Albiorix, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, etc. First because belief in the truth of these deities is directly dependant upon which brainwash was inflicted upon you by your parents. Secondly, scientific evidence of the existence of any of these deities does not exist. Thirdly, because in the absense of scientific knowledge, these myths were obviously perpetrated by fakers and witchdoctors to solidify political power, rivaling kings and warlords, while preying upon uneducated human questions, "why am I here?" and "what is the meaning of life?" And while I think that atheists, in general, should be considered fellow freethinkers, humanists as well, my interactions with them have revealed that among their ranks are antisemitists, conspiracy theorists and people who think that those who are victimized by religion are getting what they deserve, because they are stupid. Well, as a person who spent years escaping the brainwash my parents put in my head, I say, that's not freethought, it's another form of hatred. In debates I have had in the past with atheists, the point has been brought up that there is a subtle difference between "not believing in god" and "believing there is no god". I agree. But here's the rub. Those who do not believe in god are not atheists, they are agnostics, whether they like it or not. Those who believe there is no god, the universe is an accident, no spark of life, no order out of chaos, they have formed a new religion. They have chosen to adopt as a belief, that which has yet to be proven by science. Last point. On the world stage, atheists are seen as the devil's tool. Agnostics are seen as afraid or incapable of making a choice. Well, Jeff, your posts to date have demonstrated to my satifaction that you understand that freethought is not just about religion, it's about every facit of life. But, if I make this post too long, no one will read it. NL Agnostism, the Purest Form of Freethought

Ah, freethought. Freethinkers, who are they? Websters says: “one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially: one who doubts or denies religious dogma”. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freethinker
BUT!!! freedictionary says: “One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and SPECULATION.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/freethinker
Really? I would define a freethinker as: “Someone who refuses to adopt as belief anything that cannot be convincingly supported by evidence.”
And that would include all ancient goatherder mythologies: Horace, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus, Thor, Jehovah, Allah, Albiorix, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, etc. First because belief in the truth of these deities is directly dependant upon which brainwash was inflicted upon you by your parents. Secondly, scientific evidence of the existence of any of these deities does not exist. Thirdly, because in the absense of scientific knowledge, these myths were obviously perpetrated by fakers and witchdoctors to solidify political power, rivaling kings and warlords, while preying upon uneducated human questions, “why am I here?” and “what is the meaning of life?”
And while I think that atheists, in general, should be considered fellow freethinkers, humanists as well, my interactions with them have revealed that among their ranks are antisemitists, conspiracy theorists and people who think that those who are victimized by religion are getting what they deserve, because they are stupid. Well, as a person who spent years escaping the brainwash my parents put in my head, I say, that’s not freethought, it’s another form of hatred.
In debates I have had in the past with atheists, the point has been brought up that there is a subtle difference between “not believing in god” and “believing there is no god”. I agree. But here’s the rub. Those who do not believe in god are not atheists, they are agnostics, whether they like it or not. Those who believe there is no god, the universe is an accident, no spark of life, no order out of chaos, they have formed a new religion. They have chosen to adopt as a belief, that which has yet to be proven by science.
Last point. On the world stage, atheists are seen as the devil’s tool. Agnostics are seen as afraid or incapable of making a choice. Well, Jeff, your posts to date have demonstrated to my satifaction that you understand that freethought is not just about religion, it’s about every facit of life. But, if I make this post too long, no one will read it.

NL

]]>