[On Behalf of Daniel S.--(Belated) forwarding of My response to Dan's Essay (in Blue) inserted in Ishiwata's "Away Point" originating Blog below): Fw: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?

From: Norma Jeane Y.
Sent on: Saturday, October 20, 2012 5:14 AM
[On Behalf of Daniel S.--(Belated) forwarding of My response to Dan's Follow-up Essay (in Blue) inserted in Ishiwata's "Away Point" originating Blog below):  Fw: Dan's Response:  Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?

(Extra spacing added by transmitter Young between logical thought groups to form more eye-readable paragraphs in Dan's follow-up essay below .)
-Norma


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Norma Young <[address removed]>
To: Dan <[address removed]>
Sent: Thursday, October 18,[masked]:48 PM
Subject: Re: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?

YOU are profound, Dan!  Read through it quickly cuz I'm on "fumes."  Going to see Gloria Steinem tomorrow at 11:30 at UCF & have not eaten properly for the day.  Need to get out of the house & "Away" from the "Point" of the Computer. (lol--fits the originating Ishiwata blog email).

Have you solved your posting problem with OFH Mailing List?  I have posted SO many things lately, afraid I'll "wear out my welcome."  Even though written by you, people will think I'm the one responsible for "monopolizing the cyberwaves."  Is too good an essay to keep to yourself.

--Norma



From: Dan <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Thursday, October 18,[masked]:27 PM
Subject: Re: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?

Hi Norma,

     Although science is ALWAYS open to new discoveries, change and correction, the word "theory" as applied in the scientific world applies to principles that, when tested, work every single time.  If exceptions are found a theory must be modified, scrapped, or used only in circumstances where it is still believed to be valid for practical purposes.

     Something like Newton's Theory of Gravity will doubtless always work so far as it goes but it has to bow to Einstein's Theory of Relativity in some areas where the latter theory predicted (later proved) things that would not be apparent or expected under Newtonian physics.  So, the "Theory" of Evolution is actually something that has been proven true in every way that it has ever been tested.  It's still being refined but it's still true.  What it predicates always works but, as I say, there can be refinements.

     For instance, I believe it was once thought that humans and other species progressed in one direct line from lower forms to higher.  Now we know that the human "tree" (and others) have had many dead ends.  Pre-Homo Sapiens had the same common ancestor as us but those branches of the family did not survive to the present day.

     The Theory of Everything (TOE), if it is arrived at, should unite the behavior of the universe on both the micro (sub atomic) and macro (the whole, apparent to us grand universe) levels.  It would be one set of rules for everything in physics and, I suppose, chemistry, since the latter can be explained, even now, by physics.

     "Nothing" being "something" is just a thought I've nourished for some time but I don't know what a physicist would say about it.  I've read that atomic or subatomic entities pop spontaneously into the universe and also disappear after being here.  Did they come from the vacuum of space (nothing?), from another dimension, another universe?  I don't think anyone yet knows.  But, mainly, I'm thinking of the "nothing" that our universe came from at the time of "The Big Bang" as being "something."  However, I think scientific opinion is leaning a bit towards the idea that, in bumping into each other, universes create 'Big Bangs" which create new universes, most of which would have completely different laws of physics than we have.  --Dan  


-----Original Message-----
From: Norma Young <[address removed]>
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Sent: Thu, Oct 18,[masked]:05 pm
Subject: Fw: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mary <[address removed]>
To: 'Norma Young' <[address removed]>
Sent: Friday, October 12,[masked]:35 AM
Subject: RE: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?

Not a far stretch….things must have happened before there were eyes!
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Norma Young [mailto:[address removed]]
Sent: Friday, October 12,[masked]:35 AM
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don’t Believe in a God – What Should I Call Myself?
 
Wow!  Dan,  That's some profound stuff you wrote in the "Away Point" blogger's text.  I could barely understand it.  I hadn't heard of "TOE" before. An all-inclusive theory--that would be "Something."  The religionists call that God.  But "they" don't say it's a "theory."  "They" say it's an Absolute.  That's where Science & Religion part company.  Religion says it's Absolute (Dogma)--& Science says it's a theory. . . except though in the case of evolution . . . "I'm 'confused.'"  I thought it was still called the "Theory of Evolution" although scientist-type people--& many people in the OFH group talk about it as "fact."
-Norma
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dan <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10,[masked]:51 PM
Subject: Re: I Don’t Believe in a God – What Should I Call Myself?
 
O.K., I "got into it" a little bit.  Scroll down to see my thoughts.  I'm off now to a quick dinner and then back to volumes of e-mail.  --Dan  : - ) 



 
-----Original Message-----
From: Sent: Wed, Oct 10,[masked]:23 pm
Subject: Re: I Don’t Believe in a God – What Should I Call Myself?
I know, Dan.  I realized that too.  I was going to NOT forward it to anyone; however so much of what he said was original & profound & I decided to overlook his less-than-perfect English; I thought anyone genuinely interested in the subject would see his name & think what I did.  The subject matter, I felt was important enough -- & his ideas sincere & innovative--that I wanted to give his voice "more exposure."  I have posted some things on this website in the past about "labels" -- & I've wrestled with that question too.  Right now, Freethinker/Agnostic works best for me.  I like the word "free" & Agnostic is a pretty comprehensive umbrella -- that appeals to my desire to be non-dogmatic--since I came from such a dogmatic religion--Seventh-day Adventist.

--Norma
 
 

From: Dan <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10,[masked]:48 PM
Subject: Re: I Don’t Believe in a God – What Should I Call Myself?
 
I can't "get into" this one.  Nobuo Ishiwata is obviously not writing in his native tongue.  --Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Norma To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Sent: Wed, Oct 10,[masked]:25 am
Subject: I Don’t Believe in a God – What Should I Call Myself?
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Away Point <[address removed]>
To:Sent: Tuesday, October 9,[masked]:29 PM
Subject: [New comment] I Don’t Believe in a God – What Should I Call Myself?
 
Nobuo Ishiwata commented: "The almost religion claims gods created the world (the universe) and the human. Then naturally you could have next question. “Who created God (gods)?” Some answer might be: god of gods, God anyway has existed and so on. However, there’s nothing expl"
Respond to this comment by replying above this line
 
 
 

New comment on Away Point

 
in response to Valerie Tarico:
Note: Este articulo es disponible en español aquí. Catholic, Born-Again, Reformed, Jew, Muslim, Shiite, Sunni, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist . . . .  Religions give people labels. The downside can be tribalism, an assumption that insiders are better than outsiders, that they merit more compassion, integrity and generosity or even that violence toward “infidels” is acceptable. [...]
The almost religion claims gods created the world (the universe) and the human. Then naturally you could have next question. “Who created God (gods)?” Some answer might be: god of gods, God anyway has existed and so on. However, there’s nothing explanations to convince me so far. First, I have to understand how we recognize ourselves (our existence) because who recognizes such gods are exactly we – the human. You might know Descartes’ statement: “Codito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am). So we have ability to recognize not only ourselves but others, animals, plants, the world, the universe and even gods. Our brains can recognize such things by using the senses. But these human’s ‘sensors’ maybe limited to recognize our ‘true world’, in fact, our eyes can’t see infrared and our ears can’t catch ultrasonic wave. This means that we cannot verify aspects of our ‘true world (everything)’ due to a lack of suitable human’s ‘sensor’ You can feel existence of your solid body and everything through only your perceptions like a sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, balance, pain, time and others. And eventually, your consciousness recognizes them. That is to say everything’s existence – including gods – is depending on your consciousness i.e. human’s consciousness. Therefore I can say that the world and everything ware created by the human consciousness, there were not created by the gods as the religions claim.Although I have often conjectured on the possibility of a universal consciousness consisting of a "networked" amalgam of all intelligences'  everywhere (kind of like the Star War's "The Force") the probability as I understand it, remains that a tree really does fall even if no intelligence observes it.  In a certain sense "nothing" may be "something," from which all existence came/is.  In this case we observe the universe as best we can but it still exists without being observed.  That's counter to Quantum physics and I know work is being done to try to unify Quantum physics (micro) and Relativity physics (macro) into a TOE (Theory of Everything).  So far, under Relativity, I believe, things happen even if not observed.  I guess we'll just have to wait and (maybe) see.The gods are just illusion (delusion) that human’s brains create. Besides, I can point out that heaven, hell, devils and angels are delusions also. In fact, I have to say ‘crowded human’s consciousness or ‘crowded consciousness of all organisms with intelligence’ because the world and everything’s existence aren’t composed of individual consciousness. Multi-consciousness influences each other to realize our real world. If there would be someone has a special sense that the human doesn’t have, could see such ‘true world’ above and if he observe, our real world would be like a Virtual Reality. However, maybe I should quote some scientific evidence or theory about my argument above to convince you. Actually there’s information, which reveals on the crowded human’s consciousness – ‘Network of the soul’ on ‘life after death’ of the human. If you have interest about that information, you might get it, searching the internet. Moreover you might need to think of the quantum mechanics also for imaging the mention above as scientific evidence.
 
Want less email? Modify your Subscription Options.
 
 
 
 
 
 






Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy