Response from a Correspondent: Fw: Thread: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself? Discussion started by Japanese blogger Ishiwata & picked up by Young, Strack, Swami, et al (responding in I. D.'d "color code"):]

From: Norma Jeane Y.
Sent on: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:43 AM

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mary <[address removed]>
To: 'Norma Young' <[address removed]>
Sent: Saturday, October 20,[masked]:30 AM
Subject: RE: Thread: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself? Discussion started by Japanese blogger Ishiwata & picked up by Young, Strack, Swami, et al (responding in I. D.'d "color code"):]

interaction of matter and forces observed in the physical universe. It does not address consciousness, metaphysics, mathematics,”
 
With my succinctness:  Einstein’s TOE was MATHAMATICAL…..PERIOD!   He, and I concur, felt that all movements, forces, chemicals and reactions could be expressed mathematically.  I further feel that chemistry, and its math, can describe plant and animal, including brain chemistry, life.  I allow myself for others to believe in god or gods by understanding that god is really the laws of physics.
M
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Norma Young [mailto:[address removed]]
Sent: Saturday, October 20,[masked]:21 AM
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: [Re: Thread: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself? Discussion started by Japanese blogger Ishiwata & picked up by Young, Strack, Swami, et al (responding in I. D.'d "color code"):]
 

[Re: Thread:  Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?  Discussion started by Japanese blogger Ishiwata & picked up by Young, Strack, Swami, et al (responding in I. D.'d "color code"):]

[See my comments in Violet. . . (sometimes highlighted in yellow) as you "scroll/'stroll'"through:]
Norma
[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 October 18 follow-up essay below .)
-Norma
 
 
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Norma Young <[address removed]>
To: Dan <[address removed]>
Sent:
Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:48 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, 2012 11:27 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  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Thanks, Swami, for inserting "color coding"--really Helps. . . was going to suggest & do the same thing myself if you hadn't; was confusing otherwise. (Norma Jeane Young)
 
See “--Dan”’s comments, and
-- Swami”’s comments below…
 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Daniel Strack
Sent:
Saturday, October 20, 2012 12:53 AM
To: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [atheists-36] Fw: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Swami <[address removed]>
To: atheists-36 <[address removed]>
Sent:
Fri, Oct 19, 2012 9:22 pm
Subject: RE: [atheists-36] Fw: Dan's Response: Fw: I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?
Norma, Dan, et al.,
 
Have read this thread with interest.
 
Valerie Tarico does a good job in her 'Away Point' blog post, "I Don't Believe in a God - What Should I Call Myself?" laying out "atheist", "anti-theist", "agnostic", "skeptic', "freethinker", "humanist", "pantheist", and "none of the above". Take your choice. Mix and match. Or reject them all together. The important thing to do is to find whatever works for you.  I Agree.
 
Norma, you wrote: "Dan, That's some profound stuff you wrote in the 'Away Point' blogger's text." I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) you were referring to the comment by 'dan master': "After a 30 year search that wound its way from Baptist Fundamentalism to Charismatic churches to exploring Catholicism with a detour through eastern religions that led to a new found love for science, reason, and community, I have labeled myself a humanitarian.  I like that "label."  Think I'll add that to my "evolving string of labels I've "livingly-adopted" ("Living Labels") see yellow highlighted toward end of my comments (in violet) in this thread (before the "Away Point" blog at end of thread).  I have decided that it doesn’t matter what you claim to believe or dis-believe. The only thing that does matter is what you do. If you are not working to make your small corner of the world a more just, compassionate, and healthy place, I have no time for you or your message." I would summarize this as, "It's what you do, not what you claim to believe. Act from compassion." I wholeheartedly agree!
 
I blush to admit it but Norma is referring to me.  --Dan S. 
 
Dan, you don't have to "blush" -- it's O. K. to Admit it--you wrote a thought-provoking & worth-reading essay.  "The Creator is Worthy of Recognition."
  
 
As for the comment by Nobuo Ishiwata, I would say a few things. He (best I can tell this is a male's name) addressed "God", humans, consciousness (individual, and collective), illusion/delusion, and objective reality vs. perception through the senses. And in response, you commented on scientific theory vs. religious dogma, scientific theory vs. fact (as regards Evolution), and TOE (Theory of Everything). That's A LOT! Lemme see if I can concisely address these things...
 
Nubuo's ideas on consciousness are interesting, but by their nature are hard to substantiate. Individual consciousness is more tenable than a "collective consciousness". Certainly humans exhibit group behavior and influence each other, but is their consciousness "collective"?  The noted psychologist, Carl Jung is known for this inventive term, "The Collective UNconscious."  And THAT's an entire thread of its own too--the difference between the Conscious & the UNconscious!"  That's an entire thread of its own! Next, he comments: "The gods are just illusion (delusion) that human’s brains create." Illusion and delusion should not be conflated. (New word to me--got the meaning from the context.)  The former is a held belief that might be true, no matter how implausible; the latter is a belief held to be true even when the individual knows it to be false. (Fine--but Important Distinctions -- you have a Talent, Swami, for laying out quite clearly "Fine--But Important Distinctions" . . . thanks for the Education.)  He goes on to say: "everything’s existence – including gods – is depending on your consciousness i.e. human’s consciousness." I find this in contradiction to his claim that there is an objective reality. The human consciousness is just perception, not the objective reality. Finally, he references TOE.  (TOE)--I missed that somehow in reading & RE-reading Ishiwata's blog.  First, this is a bit of a misnomer as it is an attempt to explain (i.e. a scientific theory) the interaction of matter and forces observed in the physical universe. It does not address consciousness, metaphysics, mathematics, logic, or any number of other things, hence it is not a theory of "everything".  O. K., Swami, so in your understanding of TOE, it leaves out a lot of important fields of inquiry, which means it's not as comprehensive as Dan (who I believe is the only one who spoke of this (TOE) in his response to Ishiwata's blog) presents.
 
I think there's been a mix-up in the above paragraph.  I referenced the Theory of Everything, not Nobuo Ishiwata.  (If I had read this first, I wouldn't have written what I did above about not finding it in Ishiwata's writing.    I meant it simply as a hoped for explanation of how everything in our physical universe works and came to be.  I also theorized on the possibility of a universal collective consciousness but that was meant to be a separate thought.  I probably wasn't as clear about that as I might have been but at the time what I said was addressed only to Norma, who often seems to have an intuitve understanding of what I'm getting at.  --Dan S.
 
 
Well, unfortunately your comments Norma referred to are not in this thread. 
 
His ORIGINAL comments ARE in the Ishiwata blog.  They're in BLUE--the color Dan usually writes in.  His follow-up Essay I've just posted tonight with This email.  Dan was having technical difficulty trying to post to the OFH Mailing List.  That's why I was posting some things for him, as well as my comments to his emails to me that I felt were relevant to the OFH site's purpose.  Dan didn't know at the time I did the original posting of his comments inserted in the Ishiwata blog that they would be read by a wider audience; so at the time, understandably; he probably wasn't thinking he needed to the writing to the level of a "doctoral thesis" to be published in the N. Y. Times (LOL).  I've also posted his follow-up essay above from Thursday, October 18,[masked]:27 PM -- so we are all up to date now on the complete sequence thus far.  
 
(Swami, to be kinder to me the reader & other readers to follow;  I'm increasing the type size in your further comments here to 12-pt. instead of 10.  The 10 is just too hard to read, plus the color of it makes it more difficult.  I'm bolding it too -- to match the way you started out in this paragraph:  bolded & 12 pt.)
 
Plus, Nubuo also mentioned TOE, and collective consciousness. Oh well, that’s how this form of communication goes sometimes. That said, I’m still apt to point out (to whomever) that a TOE is lacking in that it is not a theory of literally “everything”, nor does it even address where the matter and forces came from, or why. To be sure, I am very interested in TOEs, but just like to keep them in context. As for a collective consciousness, sure, it’s “possible”.   How about a Jungian "Collective UNconscious?"  I’ve just never heard it described +/or explained in any reasonable way. I’m all ears, thoughJ --Swami
 
 
Norma, you wrote: "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.'"
 
Yes, dogma is unchanging, whereas scientific theory is provisional (subject to change). As for the Theory of Evolution being a fact, allow me to offer some distinctions in definition. First, a scientific "theory" and a "fact" are two different things. A theory is an explanation, whereas a fact is an observation. And importantly, a theory does not become a fact - nor does a law, as a “law” is a description. So, a theory is based on observed facts and contains supporting laws (as equations, and word statements). Also, a theory cannot be proved, only disproved. Its acceptance level is solely passed on its ability to explain and predict in accordance with observation. “Don’t mistake the map for territory” - which is to say, the theory is not the thing, but just a model. So, here’s the distinction: the Theory of Evolution is not a fact, but that organisms evolve (i.e. change) is a fact. So, any debate is on the explanation, not the fact. Of course, people can, and do, differ on definitions and meaning, so it’s good to ask and find out how they view things. 
 
(My computer insists on italicizing this.) Again; Swami, "Fine--but important distinctions.  Thank you for the Education -- gets quite "cerebral, " doesn't it?  However, precision IS important & defining definitions to see if we are "on the same page" in our discourse.  Sometimes it can feel "brain-draining/boggling" & "hair-splitting" -- [I came FROM that type of Religion--intellectual (AND DOGMATIC) in Theology -- (minored in SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Religion at the SDA "liberal" arts private college) -- yet humanitarian in the practical world.] -- however; we're talking about BIG things here -- like The THEORY OF EVERYTHING--so it's important to have precision in stating what we think & why. 
 
Our whole world functions on different Theories -- as Humanists/Agnostics/Atheists/Freethinkers/Non-Theists, etc. see it) -- but which are actually Practiced as dogmatic, egocentric religions about "God" ("god"/god) & Cosmology -- certainly seeing that "playing out" in this current Election--which will affect our Daily Lives--so Yes, I agree, "one can't be 'too careful'" in being painstaking about the words we use. 
 
As Marshall McLuhan, the Father of Modern Communications, said:  "Meaning is not in Words; It is in People."  And no two People are alike.  That's why it's vitally important we take time to "plumb the Essences & Depths of our Meanings"as we express them in the words we use -- to question the words themselves.  To question is to Not be dogmatic.  And to continue to question even our own "answers" or "hypotheses."  THAT, as I understand it -- is part of what it means to be a Free Thinker & an Open-Minded Person; Open-Minded Scientist.
 
I'll have to quibble about the above (Dan is referring to Swami's comments--not to Young's just posted immediately above in this Response) in that I think dogma does sometimes change but usually it's at a glacial pace.  I Agree.  Good imagery.  (Again; taking the liberty of changing type size from original 10 in the posting--actually looks like 8 to me & bolding it for readability.)  Blacks can now hold high office in the Mormon church and polygamy is no longer allowed.  Those changes were at light speed, for political reasons.  The Catholic church's former position that the Sun and Moon moved above a fixed Earth might properly be considered dogma, based on biblical narrative.  That one took a few centuries to change, as does most dogma.  When experiment and observation verify a theory it then passes from being just an idea to being an explanation, as stated above, or at least that's my understanding.  I guess it's true that a theory can never be finally and for all time proved, only disproved, but we can usually accept it with a high degree of confidence if it has always worked.  (Usually, like gravity--except when you get in Outer Space--as our space explorations verified.)  As Einstein proved, however, that doesn't mean we should stop considering new possibilities.  --Dan S.  
 
Yes, you are correct, dogma does change, but it’s not supposed to, and it generally doesn’t do so of its own accord!  Agreed.  It takes "Pushes" from the Outside World.  They "change or die" as they see the outside world changing -- & realize if they don't change, they will "dogmatize themselves" Out of Existence!  That's what's happening in part (slowly) with the Catholic Church as they find it more difficult to recruit & keep priests & nuns who will unthinkingly for a lifetime be their "robots."  I left the SDA Church right after college graduation as my Consciousness began to change--because I realized "Hell would 'freeze over' before The Church (SDA) would change -- & I didn't have time for THAT!" I had a LIFE to Explore & Lead! -- And Purposes to Fulfill and the Responsibility to Actualize my "Holy"/Wholly (WHOLE) Potential. And this fact essentially maintains the comparison between religious dogma and science that I intended to express. BTW, an unsubstantiated theory is technically a “hypothesis”.   Agreed.  And again, a theory is accepted to the extent that it explains and predicts in accordance with observation (and experimentation, which is an observation of sorts).  Yes, experimentation DOES require observation--in order to know what to do "Next" IN the experiment--whether it be in a human-created laboratory -- or in the "Laboratory of Life. . . which is partially human-created."  And it is true that Einstein provided a better explanation, but Newton ’s is still valid across a wide range of conditions and is still used in engineering.  --Swami
 
 
Finally, regarding the original question of this thread: as for myself, I self-identify primarily as a (secular) --
 
[I've been wanting to ASK this for a long time--ever since I joined the OFH & saw the term being used.  Every word (or most) have their opposites.  To say "secular" implies there's "such a thing/category" as "sacred" humanist.  What IS a "sacred" humanist?  And for that matter, tell me first, please, what a "secular" humanist IS.  To distinguish "secular, " one has to accept the existence of the Opposite.  But I've experienced in the OFH group that the word "sacred" is anathema.  In the world I came FROM, "sacred" & "secular" were RIGIDLY separated.  So much so, that I wasn't allowed to go swimming on Sabbath (The Lord's Day)--because that was "doing 'one's own pleasure" -- which was considered "secular." 
 
One of the reasons I left the SDA Church:  too MUCH separation between "sacred" & secular."  Goes back partly, I think to Plato's & Socrate's days of dualism (still WITH us) of making "heaven" "Good" & "earth" "Bad."  Part of the origin of Sexism, I think (& holistic health writings began to educate me) as people, through church teachings connected women more and more with "earthly" & men more & more with "heavenly."  The BODY was denigrated (a condition that still exists worldwide) & the mind exalted in the aestic philosophy.  The "Hereafter" was what was important--an attitude that's been responsible for a lot of the justification for "trashing the earth" -- because "This World is Not My Home--I'm just a passin' through" like the hymn goes I was taught in church. 
 
I think NOW--& have for some decades-- that there should BE No Distinction between sacred and secular.  It's ALL GOOD! -- The Mind AND the BODY.  We are/should be WHOLE human beings --not separated into 2 halves.  The "mind-body split" is what has caused a lot of damage to human beings AND civilization.]
 
-- humanist (because it represents a positive lifestance/worldview, and involves principles I identify with that inform my behavior). As for “God(s)”, I’m and agnostic atheist: I don’t believe in a God(s) (to the extent that I have evidence), but I don’t claim to know whether or not God(s) exist (in fact, I lean toward this being not knowable). So, I’m a secular humanist, agnostic atheist, (A "mouthful" but/and precisely, fully claimed and defined.  Good for you.  I have a "string" of names to describe myself too.  Latest is "Eclectic; Free Thinker; Humanitarian; Agnostic; Evolving-Truth Traveler; Dancing Nudist-Naturist." but I just present myself as a compassionate fellow human and let the rest fall out as I interact with people.  I aspire/strive to be compassionate--both to myself & others at all times however many times "fall short of "the mark." I would also amend your "presentation" for myself to say "Sister" human.  I don't "buy" "fellow" meaning BOTH men and women.  Is "subsuming" terminology.  Sexist.  Same with "guys" used in current vernacular to refer to BOTH males & females collectively.  Again, dangerous, subsuming terminology.  Subsuming terminology is what was used from the time the Declaration of Independence & the U. S. Constitution were written to keep women from voting -- until 1920 -- & continually -- even now -- from  FULL PERSONHOOD  in these "United" States of America.  Those documents said "Men"--& they MEANT MEN ONLY -- NOT  Women TOO
 
We want specificity when we want to use the restroom & it's best we have specificity otherwise.  If we want to refer to BOTH genders at once, we can say, "folks," or "people" or "humans," etc.  Someone needs to Invent a term that would mean Both genders when people want to "speak shorthand & refer to both genders in the room -- say instead of saying "guys & gals," one could say "goyles"  (pronounced with the kind of Bronx? accent Horschack used in "Welcome Back, Kotter").  I just NOW thought of this--maybe it'll "catch on like "Ms." to refer to any woman -- without revealing her marital status -- as "Mr." does (not reveal his marital status).
 
O. K., there My "2 cents" too -- plus a few more:)
Naturally yours,
"Rainbow Gal":) happy Norma Jeane Young
 
 
OK, there’s my 2 cents, plus a few more:)
 
 
ReflectivelYours,
 
Swami
 
 

From: [address removed] [mailto:[address removed]] On Behalf Of Norma Jeane Young
Sent: Thursday, October 18,[masked]:05 PM
To: [address removed]
Subject: [atheists-36] 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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Norma Jeane Young ([address removed]) from Orlando Freethinkers & Humanists.
To learn more about Norma Jeane Young, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Swami ([address removed]) from Orlando Freethinkers & Humanists.
To learn more about Swami, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Daniel Strack ([address removed]) from Orlando Freethinkers & Humanists.
To learn more about Daniel Strack, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Swami ([address removed]) from Orlando Freethinkers & Humanists.
To learn more about Swami, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]
 


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