Hard vs Soft Atheism

What I am seems so fleeting and intangible, but what I was—is fixed and final.

I am more closely identified with what no longer exists, than with what actually is. This overwhelming feeling that I am not a body, but have a body, is a curious look in the mirror. So who am I—and who are you? Just a skin encapsulated accident of evolution, or is there more to it?

When I became a non-believer, I was certain there was nothing beyond this physical experience—nothing but neurons, senses, hormones, and misinterpreted persuasions and perceptions. What it really was though, was a clean slate to view the world without the bias of belief. I really don’t care which way it is, so I ponder existence, consciousness, and try to find my own answers.

Now I am at a crossroad with nowhere to go, yet I press on daily collecting thoughts on a path of least contradiction. That the physical world too, cannot be explained without using the same abstractions of speech and metaphors, really leads me to wonder if there is any difference in stuff at all. And no one has yet put their finger on what the physical world actually is, generally meeting the requirements of spirit.

In the west we have a limited way with words that do not adequately describe the philosophies of half the world. Bonded by the Hebrew way of a monarchial boss, it is an imagery we can’t escape even when we know it’s crap.

The idea of the absolute god with all authority is a major, cultural catastrophe that set a course of dismissing other lines of thought, rebuttals ready before the sentence is even finished. But there are better ways of being, and we find when we look elsewhere it’s not even special—it never was. Just the only table setting.

One issue I have with hard atheism is it’s own automatic rebuttal feature. Sure, it’s easy to dismiss Christianity, but does that mean there is nothing at all?

With all the hairsplitting of physical and metaphysical jargon, it appears everything is god. We are all tits on the same sow—Alan Watts, and god doesn’t know it’s god anymore than you can identify your own source of thought. You’re it

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

134 thoughts on “Hard vs Soft Atheism”

  1. Not sure of the difference between a hard and soft atheist, but there’s definitely no “God-shaped vacuum” in the heart of this reader. It is what it is — and nothing more.

    “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” –Douglas Adams

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am in agreement with you. It is however, interesting to explore some other ways of thinking. I should preface these post as particular points of view, not my beliefs, but better ways of understanding existence than the superiority complex of Abrahamic faith. Most of the eastern traditions point out the earth and everything on it arises of its own accord and there are no bosses—and to trust nature instead of meddling in everything. It fits pretty well with evolution and my way of seeing the world, There is an inherent theme to trust the good and the bad, to recognize it is what it is and work with it instead of against it. To trust your distrust (cooperation among thieves). If you can’t trust yourself, can you even trust the distrust in yourself? It turns human minds to wishy washy jelly and choosing sides. As Joseph Campbell said, “the world is full of people who no longer trust themselves”, yet they put their trust in a system of scoundrels. We can trust that we are all scoundrels, so we drop the mask (the persona) and live in reality.

      Like

  2. matter is a dance between consciousness and energy (Shiva/Shakti in Hinduism, yin/yang) two complementary principle which are one, yet not same. they work together and are as inseparable as heat is from fire. imagine consciousness as the empty, clear screen on which the energy can project her colorful movie -life as we experience it.

    imagine also, a yet unmanifested state (let’s say, before your birth) when all is one- ‘I’. in this state, you are swimming in an undifferentiated ‘pure being’ where nothing can be known, because there is no ‘other’ to know. mind itself has not come into being yet, so don’t even try to think thoughts, heheh

    on this blissful, whole state, consciousness appears and with it the state of ‘I AM’. in this state dualism arises, as consciousness needs something to reflect itself on, in order to know that it is. so here, One has split into another. we have the world- I and That.
    how would you know that you exist, if you didn’t have the body?

    the true purpose is for consciousness to make its way back to its original state where it knows itself to be one source. and yes, when you truly forget yourself (like in an act of creativity) you are closest to your true nature (that of pure being, thought-free, fully merged with the object) in that absolute state, you cannot know yourself (god doesn’t know it is god) because the ‘I’ never arises.

    so you can say, matter is spirit ‘fallen’, and spirit is matter awakened. indeed, the whole thing is god. not god creator, but ‘god’ the principle of creation, alive and well in all. what we do with it, is up to our imagination

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Interesting. I hear rawgod disagreeing with you about these concepts, but to me you are in agreement and the semantics are skewed.
      I am still determined to stay expert and institution free and figure out what I can, but you give me something to chew on—whether I spit it out or swallow it is yet to be seen.

      Like

  3. Yeah, it is easy to dismiss Christianity … and it is just as easy to dismiss all of the rest. I find the point of dismissal is when proponents of any religion brings in the supernatural. At that point they lose me. This is because most people think of the natural as “what we do know,” when we know only very little of it at all. I think of the “natural” as what we can know. If we look hard enough, think hard enough, etc. Once people claim there is something “outside of that” that are talking about outside of what we can know and I have to ask “how do you know that?” And they cannot answer that because what they are claiming is outside of what we can know.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. So matter is a most elusive discussion as well. When we start describing it based on electrons, gluons, empty space and perceived energies, planke waves and quarks, we have to make some pretty big presuppositions, since the only particle we can see to date I believe, is the photon. You literally could have the same discussions about spirit and quantum theory and reverse the context and sound like a religious discussion.

      Like

  4. Am I someone? I am no more ‘somebody’ than a blade of grass of the atoms that make up dirt. But I am someone, only because myself or another ‘person’ said so. Why do we do this? I dunno, humans like to forge identity out of things and because we like patterns. Maybe it makes our lives easier somehow. Of course, religion is also a byproduct of all this, and it has made some peoples lives easier at the expense of several others. That is my take on all of this.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I’m starting to feel intimidated about commenting on your blog. Ha ha. Everyone else has these long well thought out paragraphs filled with logic and reason and I’m like… ‘Oooh… Alan Watts’.

    Also you said tits.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for confirming evidence of the primordial ooze, Jo. Don’t feel intimidated (I’m sure that helps) but just f’cough mate. And remember, when you’ve seen one pair of tittles, you pretty much want to see the rest of them. And in your case now as you’ve adroitly admitted, it doesn’t matter what kind.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. On the personal level I’ve never had problems “self explaining” nature. I see a tree, it’s made of wood. What comes before the wood is of little, maybe of no, concern to me at this moment of observing. From the wood I move into re-shaping or morphing of that particular substance into the man-made: a table, an ax handle, a picture frame, a totem pole, a chair, a child’s toy. Wood, reshaped to suit the desires/needs of the designer/developer. That’s nature, from possibly a non-space I have no need to know about at this moment, to the desk my computer is sitting on. I believe that knowledge should be based on experience or it remains nothing more than information. I believe that our experiences (that which we are) validate our knowledge. I believe that as I have traveled through (and beyond) space/time I became the knowledge I garnered from my experiences of life. The experiences came and went as I developed a mind composed of knowledge transmuted from ephemeral experiences. I am knowledge. I am also aware that as a knowledge being, I can only exist as an eternal, for the accumulation of knowledge, the developing of “me” as mind, can never end. I believe that as I mind-expand cosmically, a part of me leans inexorably “back” to look at my own beginning and although I’ll never acquire the full knowledge of my own exact “beginning” much less that of life in general, I will continue to remember thus adding to that mind being I know, and currently experience, as “me.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. One of the things I appreciate about your story (and others) is it illustrates the personal aspect of each participant. Some get to know what their journey is to make it specifically meaningful and determined, while others may never know, yet find fulfilling lives as well. Or more crudely, each tit on the sow produces a little different volume and flavor.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. “god doesn’t know it’s god anymore than you can identify your own source of thought”

    If for a moment I could revert to a position of believing in a god, with my present understanding of life still intact, I would pretty much agree with you, but my statement would end at “god doesn’t know it’s god.” How can it, there is no one to tell it that it is god. In fact, there is no one to even give it language. Can one know or think without language?
    But moving on, as humans we learn through relationships. As babies we respond to touch, or the lack thereof. We can’t say we really respond to comfort, but certainly we respond to discomfort–we do not like to be left in our own discharges. The more soothing attention we get, the more we smile and gurgle. All these things are relationships, and while we may not understand that at first, we learn it fairly quickly.
    Now imagine we were alone in an uncomfortable environment. If somehow we were able to survive, providing food and shelter for ourselves, would we ever come to self-awareness?
    With only nothingness to relate to, it stands to reason that a god would not either.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s a pretty good analogy. You said earlier, “Meanwhile, the universe has no awareness of what it does”. I think it does, but isn’t curious or noticing, it just does, like a fish’s scale or fin reacting and working through the current—without a thought about it. But there can be no intelligence without unintelligence. We are the intelligence, it is the un.

      Like

      1. In my understanding, the universe knows what it does as we know what we do. But do we know what an organ or a cell of our body does. We know the organ and the cell are alive, but few of us would grant that the organ or 6the cell is aware of what it is doing. The universe might know a galaxy is alive, or even a planet, but it would not be aware of that galaxy or planet being aware of what it is doing.
        Is this what you are alluding to when you speak of intelligence and unintelligence? I would like to understand, if you are ready to explain further what you are saying/understanding.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I’m finding it difficult, considering all you’ve written in the past, to understand why you consider the Universe has awareness. Sounds to me like you’re “personalizing” it just as the believers do with their god. Am I missing something?

        Like

        1. I am simply exploring the thought processes of other cultures and religions. These were all forbidden knowledge in my rise in the church. It is interesting to me, that’s all. What I find fascinating is I was always taught that Christianity was special, and superior. But if anyone were to truly look elsewhere, they would find some philosophies that are much more intellectual and sophisticated than the monotheism of the Hebrew. Plus I’ve run out of topics on the faith trap and it’s outcomes.
          The Tao is really interesting, requires no belief, and teaches nature is an organic happening that rises again and again without a beginning. In fact, the Tao discourages belief as a blockade to individual growth. There is a lot of truth in that, but the moment you cling to a belief or an institution, comes the stall.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I can assume many roles through unbelief, try to put myself in the minds of the different ways of thinking, yet draw no conclusions. It amazes me that belief can have so many errant outcomes yet the masses still cling. Really quite amazing.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Some people seem unable to just live life and accept things as they are. For whatever reason, they feel it necessary to attach meaning … stories … beliefs … philosophies … etc. Perhaps it’s because I’m “older,” but I’ve learned to just take each day as it comes and be thankful I’ve still around to enjoy whatever is being offered.

            I don’t deny that probing “reality” and “existence” can’t be fascinating but IMO, any answers we find are simply those that make sense to us.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Regardless of the underlying reality, the journey is obviously ours alone to make and explore. Anyone that says different is selling something, even if it’s their own insecurities.

              Liked by 1 person

  8. This is a particular subject I have difficulty discussing with people because what I find to make sense to me is really far out in the realm of there is no “me”, free will is a fallacy and the further I look into religion on a philosophical level the more atheist I become. I don’t struggle with the idea of self. I don’t find a need for it. It’s only when we get tied into the idea of faith and self that one struggles with reality and free will.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. “The idea of the absolute god with all authority is a major, cultural catastrophe that set a course of dismissing other lines of thought, rebuttals ready before the sentence is even finished.”

    I agree completely, Jim. Adherents of a faith that has to explain everything past, present, and future stake everything on their omniscient omnipotent god with all that absolute authority. Whatever transpires — such as a pandemic — is part of an Almighty plan, perfect in every way. God is pruning his crop in order to make US stronger and more obedient to His will, of course. God has pruning shears and He knows what He is doing.
    Trump is a part of His plan. God works in really, really mysterious ways. Rebuttals are the work of the Evil One.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Whoever decided to go with the all pure and perfect, omnipotent monarchial boss didn’t think it through very well, did they? Defending contradiction like it’s a virtue has become a way of life in the church to the tune of 750,000 catalogued new Christian titles every year in the US alone. Professional explainers, they are, with still zero results.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That figure of 750,000 speaks volumes (pun intended), it’s a testament (I’m on a roll) to the tenacity of belief in that monarchical boss’ ability to command attention from gullible-to-the-gills congregations. Professional explainers indeed. Critical thinking is countered as proof of Satan’s existence.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. While striving for stronger faith is evidence of unbelief, not strong belief. The appeal to faith was a masterful play on the foibles of human psychology. I think of it as a guru challenge to his students, and until they can surpass belief mode they are not ready for the mysteries (there aren’t any) but who can wield such personal responsibility when they are stuck in first gear?

          Liked by 1 person

    1. That seems to be who we identify with, and selective too. We choose the past that defines us. I listen to my brother tell stories about our youth and wonder sometimes if I was even there. He remembers the bad, I only remember the good. Wonder why?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hmm. That is an interesting twist. I do remember a lot of the bad, but I’ve also blocked out a lot of it and have many wonderful memories of growing up. I haven’t had a lot of comparisons of memories with my siblings, though.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. “Consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-while-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter …” Philip Goff

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I can follow some of that, but it also should represent a bigger picture for me to love it. That nature is automatic (not in the mechanical sense) and nurtures itself and rises through biology at every level—yet doesn’t even know it is doing it—just like us

      Like

        1. I do prefer the older term, “natural philosophy” to modern science. There is obviously nothing that appears to be something. Isn’t that just the coolest concept to explore—ever?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Nothing can never be something, so there’s always been something..and I guess there always will be…fluctuating waiting for the return of emergent processes.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. You alway find homework for me. Thanks Mary. I’ll take a peek. Sounds…spirity
              Follow up edit: excellent article! Thanks again Mary.

              Liked by 1 person

  11. Well of course this, presentation of the reality that we all share, is IT.
    Why?
    Because we have no where else to look.
    Like wise, your life is yours to live. No else can live it for you with two glaring exceptions. You can be institutionalized or you can volunteer yourself into perpetual servitude. A slave to a master who then dictates what is now no longer yours. As written this seems to be the SOP. Drop everything and follow me. Can this kind of thinking be more primitive? 😢 Mixed fabric and diet edicts.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’m not dropping anything nor following anything at all, just a thought exercise to dabble in my unknowns. If however, you were able to test a couple of methods and get results, would you try? Unlike Christianity, there seems to be a way to get a peek behind the curtain and see backstage in this game of all games

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Actually according to the philosophy belief in anything is a hinderance, something to cling to that gets in the way of clearing your mind. There is no dogma to believe? Only methods to apply.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Extremely disorientating to individuals who can’t imagine challenging two thousand year old dogma. The notion that the universe was not a backdrop created for our amusement. Yet hear we are. Being referred to as a theist should be considered to be a demeaning insult not something admirable.

            Liked by 1 person

  12. There is a hint in your piece that reminds me of the argument I have heard from Christians: ”If we get rid of religion what will you replace it with?”
    Why the belief we need to replace it with anything?
    Recently, I got a cactus thorn lodged in my left index finger while clearing part of the garden. I struggled to remove it but eventually I picked it out with a pin, and that was that. Gone. And I simply carried on gardening.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. Haha. I get that. There is no harm in learning what the rest of the world sees as normal. Whatever the flavor, the intended purity of anything is corrupted the moment it is institutionalized. That why me thinks alone. Don’t read too much into it. These are simply thoughts I am exploring.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. …the intended purity of anything is corrupted the moment it is institutionalized.

        HEAR HEAR to that Sir Guru of the Northwest!!! THAT thinking right there acknowledges beautifully this life’s immeasurable diversity… especially in Homo sapiens! Well said Jim, very well said. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        1. That is why it’s critical never to institutionalize atheism. Ever! It would only compromise it. Now I am free to explore whatever in the world interests me. Then move along to the next without some guarded and protected dogma.

          Liked by 2 people

        1. Well, if they are listening let me be clear enough. If you consider all the evidence and follow any reasonable, natural path, Christianity is nowhere near the natural conclusion. It is simply an artificial religion, made in Israel.
          It is at odds with the ground under our feet and contains every defined contradiction known to man.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. The Chinese have some fascinating philosophies, but they too have been institutionalized and are as corrupt as any other. How’s your pandemic treating you anyway? We’re slowly opening up here, but there is some pushback. I’ve been working the whole time as an essential business, but many people are really getting hammered.

              Like

    2. It seems most religions believe life must have some purpose. But if you remove the need for a specific purpose, then their religion doesn’t have a basis to stand on. Of course (I think) they don’t have a leg to stand on. The way they get around that then, is by either bribing you (eg eternal life) or threatening you (Hell). When I was a Christian I couldn’t wrap my head around it of course, thinking that there must be some kind of purpose/religion in our life, because that’s all I had ever known and I was bribed and threatened otherwise.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. This is the point in existential moments where definitive, timeless answers are not found. That is the reason I chose Humanism. Freethinking Humanism because it merely deals with the here and now. Not the so much the unknown future. What we are able to observe, tangibly perceive with actual measurements and sensory-perception, and then construct (hopefully) a collaborative, altruistic desire to be present, to be participatory with all of humanity’s brilliant virtues and despicable faults. But most importantly that we embrace our mortality and REAL minuscule place in the Cosmos/Universe and leave Earth a better place than we found it (at birth) and to make the most memorable, impactful relationships with everyone who shares our life together.

    I find much peace in this present-ness and look only to live my life to its fullest along with everyone I encounter during my very short life here. 🙂 ❤️

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Certainly I would think any form of enlightenment would align nicely with humanism, but the odd thing is when one gets a glimpse behind the scenes, it usually results in laughter, not going out and try to save the world, because the entire thing is in fact, you that is behind the whole game. It’s an interesting point of view no less.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ahhhhh!!! Now laughter is an EXCELLENT antidote/antibody for our daunting, minuscule lives on this tiny Pale-Blue dot of a rock! Hence, living this life to the fullest—without too much harm to others we encounter—is a most excellent M.O. to becoming the most WHOLE human being possible and doing it all with others… thru the best of times and the worst of times. 🙂 ❤️

        Liked by 1 person

  14. “One issue I have with hard atheism is it’s own automatic rebuttal feature. Sure, it’s easy to dismiss Christianity, but does that mean there is nothing at all?

    yep, it’s easy to dismiss Christianity. It’s just as easy to dismiss any claims of magic since they all end up trying to use the same arguments as Christianity does. The apologetics of woo are the same as the apologetics of Chrisitanity.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. So what of Zen or Tao provides apologetics in line with Christianity, since it has no official doctrine nor bosses, but merely a method to illuminate liberation from all doctrine? Do you know enough of eastern philosophy to dismiss it outright as woo? Sounds like you’ve decided blanketly that nothing is real outside of your skin and neurons, but have you tested these methods as you have Christianity?
      Another interesting aspect is that nature arises of its own accord, but nature is more than what you suppose is the physical world, which is 99.99999% empty space. You explain that in terms that don’t comparatively resemble a metaphorical/ metaphysical mumbo.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Jim, can you show me one instance where magic was ever the answer?

        And what evidence do you have that “nature” (define that please) is more than the physical world? Yep, the universe is quite a bit of empty space. That doesn’t mean its filled with anything e.g. magic.

        I do really wish there was magic. I’ve seen no evidence that there is any such thing. There is no more reason to think that the tao e.g. an underlining order to the universe, is any more real than the christian versions of their god. Zen seems to be just a way to train the mind, which doesn’t seem to have any more evidence it works as claimed as prayer does.

        How have *you* tested these methods, Jim? I test them by reading about them and trying to put them into practice. If they don’t work as claimed, I chuck them into the same heap I have Christianity, Wicca, etc. I don’t try to find excuses why I didn’t do something “right”.

        Like

        1. First of all, proving the physical world is anything of substance might be your first challenge. It certainly feels like “here I am” but upon investigation you’d start to sound like a religious assumption explaining where all the missing material is. It ain’t what it seems. We’re barely here if even at all. Some Chinese philosophies have pointed this out for 3000 years, yet you’d credit science with discovering this void of material without any real explanation at all, while simultaneously discrediting the other as “magic”. I’m not quite so incurious. Has anyone seen an electron, a gluon, or a quark, yet use some serious philosophical jargon to explain what can’t be seen and barely detected. Zen is a way to untrain the mind, not to train the mind. To see through the gaps and get a glimpse of the underlying reality. It’s certainly interesting. On the philosophical side, much more intellectual than the west whose influence you hail from, yet hate though you can’t seem to escape it. You’ve traded the religion of death for the science of the same mechanical outcome as the believers. Two philosophies that have dominated the west—Self deprecating religion, for a self deprecating science where man is nothing but a stint from the maternity ward to the crematorium.
          It’s certainly worth learning about

          Like

          1. you think that the physical world isn’t anything of substance? Okay, that’s silly and since you made the claim, you get to support it. I have no problem in betting my ladle of molten steel against your woo.

            What “missing material”? We have quite a lot of theories for that if you are talking about the gravitic influence we see around galaxies that doesn’t seem to be from regular ol’ matter.

            Now, if you are making some claim that something is missing but it isn’t some gravity using thing, then what it is you claim is “missing”? What “should” be here?

            And what Chinese philsophies discuss this stuff that should be here and how do they define this stuff?

            Again, show me any evidence of this magic you want to claim exists. Yes, we have seen electrons. And then you’ll complain that well we haven’t seen soemthing else, and when we do, you’ll find something else to invent that we haven’t seen but that this “not seeing” somehow makes magic real. People used to make the same excuses with “we can’t see atoms” but golly when we were able to see them, they dropped that ever so conveniently. https://www.sciencealert.com/this-mind-blowing-photo-of-a-single-trapped-atom-won-a-prize-this-year

            Zen is a way to train the mind to achieve something new, so yes, it is training.

            Jim, you defend the same baseless claims that other religions and philosophies make, with the same apologetics. Something that is exotic is given the benefit of the doubt with the same lack of evidence as the familiar has.

            I don’t hate anything, and boy does that sound like a Christian saying I have to “hate” their nonsense too. I have chucked Christianity for the same reason I chucked Shintoism and Daoism etc because it has no evidence for its claims. And gee, you are using the same argument a Christian does, insisting that anyone who doesn’t believe in magic simply must consider humanity an accident and worthless. sorry, that’s crap from you just like it is from a christian.

            show evidence, that’s all I’m asking for, from you and from them.

            Like

            1. Ladle of steel against woo? I’ve said nothing of woo. That matter is composed of 99.999% empty space and mass is determined by the energy content? If you took all the solid parts of the human race it could basically fit in a thimble.
              A lot of scientists (not all) think that almost all the mass of our bodies comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks and the binding energy of the gluons, yet these are massless. Its now time to reexamine and redefine what we mean by empty space, because as it turns out, space is never truly empty. It’s actually full of of stuff, including wave functions and invisible quantum fields. Talk about woo?
              Technically, electrons are point sources, which means they have no volume. But they do have something called a wave function occupying a nice chunk of the atom. Since quantum mechanics is quite weird and confusing, the volume-less electron is somehow simultaneously everywhere in that chunk of space, yet nowhere it can be proven with any certainty.
              You speak with authority but even the physicist really don’t know what the hell is going on. But they can woo and it is respected. The way all of this is presented cannot help but make a religious person conclude the terminology that has to be reinvented and stretched beyond imagination meets all the requirements of spirit.

              Like

            2. all you’ve said is about woo e.g. your claims that somehow eastern baseless nonsense is somehow to be considered more real than western baseless nonsense. Matter is indeed composed of a lot of empty space but not the percentage you’ve invented.

              So who are these “a lot of scientists”, Jim? You make the same baseless claims that Christians often do, Quantum physics is quite real. Your magical nonsense isn’t. You seem to, again, be trying the Christian claim that somehow quantum physics allows for your nonsense to exist. The electron is not everywhere in a chunk of space, we, at present can’t determine location at the same speed. that’s the uncertainty principle.

              You again want to attack people who know more than you since they show that your nonsense isn’t true. Physicists do know what is going on, and even if they don’t have all of the answers, your magic doesn’t have any evidence for its existence.

              There is no “spirit” since believers of woo, like you, have tried to redefine it for all of history.

              It’s disappointing to see such nonsense from you, Jim.

              Like

            3. Haha. Whoa, Jesus! I’m simply exploring other ways of thought that we’re forbidden in my youth. I believe nothing, not even your armchair science that misrepresents basic math. I’m no believer of woo, but I’m certain your attack of everything not you is a matter of mis understanding the way most of the world thinks. Nature is doing just fine regardless of belief. I’ll put up a banner “Look everyone? Vel has rudely solved the mysteries of the universe and simultaneously refuted nothing”. Has resorted to bitterness towards someone who has supported your efforts for quite some time.
              It does cause me concern that you have no rebuttal for you beliefs.
              In fact these are very short posts. If you would read to comprehend and exercise a little patience, we see the Tao teaches that nature arises from itself and there are no god or bosses. I thought that was an astute observation.

              Like

            4. no, you are making claims and then dodging when someone asks you to support those claims. If you don’t believe science, I do hope you would be honest enough to not be using anything that comes from that science

              Nice strawman you’ve created to attack. Nature is indeed going just fine without you and your claims of magic.

              I don’t care if you “support” me or not, when you make ridiculous claims about reality without evidence. I don’t close my eyes when there is something I want to be true. I consider it all equally. Heck, I’d be on my knees in front of a altar to Sekhmet if I thought it would work. I even tried it. Nothing happens. I didn’t need to make up excuses why Sekhmet is real but she doesn’t do anything at all.

              what the devil does this even mean? “It does cause me concern that you have no rebuttal for your beliefs.” ??????

              and more info on the atom: “The strontium atom in the photo is hit by a high-powered laser, which causes the electrons orbiting the strontium atom to become more energized. Occasionally, these energized electrons will give off light. With enough energized electrons giving off enough light, it’s possible for an ordinary camera to image the atom.” https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a17804899/here-is-a-photo-of-a-single-atom/

              the atom is lit and give off light, glowing. Now, I know you know what a light bulb looks like and it gives of more light in a radius than it physically is. so, do you think these people are lying just to inconvenience you: https://epsrc.ukri.org/?

              Like

            5. I have over 500 posts and routinely support science in all of them. I’m not presenting claims without evidence at all, just exploring and discussing different ways of thought and perception I am not familiar with. If you want to turn that into a belief the issue is yours, not mine. I believe in nothing. I think most everyone here but you understands that. You’re acting a bit like a person who has had their faith challenged by discussion, which is all this is. The eastern idea is more in line with science than religion if you cared to comprehend, but your knee jerk reactions from a couple of interesting philosophies is quite an affront to any form of discussion.
              So here we go. Your determined belief that there is nothing but bags of skin and neurons is your own faith problem (can you comprehend and idea outside your beliefs) predetermined by expert atheists and so offended by even thinking about other ways of being shows you’ve determined to be a hard atheist at any cost.

              Like

            6. I would postulate that you do believe in a lot of things since you expect that your computer will work, the sun will come up, etc. If you don’t believe that physics as we know them truly represent the universe, you would have to question every single action.

              You might want to take a look at those who have liked my comments.

              Again, waiting for evidence that eastern ideas have any basis in reality. You had mentioned some 3000 year old Chinese beliefs but you have not told me what they are when I have asked. Why not?

              Still waiting for you to show me we aren’t just bags of skin and neurons. I can comprehend many beliefs outside my own. The question is whether you can show that those beliefs reflect reality. Can you?

              Like

            7. Not really sure what it is you want? All I did was pose some questions and stated the obvious that science has to use the same type of abstract speech to explain its theories. The empty spaces that compose the majority of matter sounds like someone explaining spirit. Sure, it’s easy to dismiss Christianity, but does that mean there is nothing at all? So you are confident there is nothing but the physical world you can lay your hands and eyes on?
              God (for lack of a better term) doesn’t know it’s god anymore than you can identify your own source of thought. You’re it. Who could possibly take issue with this. You’re it. Can you illustrate to me that you are not?
              There seems to be too much going on outside your concrete material conclusions to just dismiss everything as magic, when we can’t explain the empty spaces any better than any religion.
              Things are much stranger and varied than you will admit (determined atheism) so, you’ve closed your book. Yet I would like to change gears for a moment. Since you like Nat Geo maybe your familiar with ethnographer Wade Davis? He tells about the Kofan of Columbia (and many others) and their mastery of 80,000 species of plants. He asked them how they knew so much (even subspecies and what to mix with what) and they told him the plants speak to them, and they see and hear the vibrations of the leaves on the night of a full moon instructing them for human use. Now Wade Davis says they are more skilled than a Harvard trained botanist, just illustrating here that there are many legitimate ways of being, and the ethnosphere is an integral part of how the world maintains its health (according to Nat Geo) When everybody believes in the same discipline and in the same way (your way) the earth will be on its last legs.
              You are stuck in the Newtonian trap. The earth is a mechanical and dumb accident which leads to the same outcome as believing the earth was created. There are more than two options. You’ve chosen the religious one and don’t even know it.

              Like

            8. I’m looking for evidence. You have none for your claims. Just like Wade Davis has no evidence for his claims. I might consider his claims more if he were a botanist. It is an easy trap to fall into when claiming that the ‘natives’ are somehow “better” than others. The “noble savage” meme runs deep.

              Again, you rely on more baseless claims, Jim and outright lies about what I believe. The earth is not a “mechanical and dumb accident”.

              And it’s pretty silly to claim that I’m religious. Is that what you are left with when I ask for evidence?

              oh and my own source of thought is my brain. When that is dead, so are my thoughts. To claim otherwise needs evidence to back it up not just wishful thinking.

              Like

            9. So the Harvard botanists as well, were stumped and also agreed with Wade, so stop dodging. Are you absolutely certain the Kofan can not speak with plants the way they are in fact communicating with plants?
              And yes, you are being religious. You have chosen the table setting that was handed to you by a way of thinking and observing the world that is flawed.
              I suppose all the cultures that survived for thousands of years living there own versions of reality were not experiencing “real life”, the way you are? I did not say they were better, but they are legitimately different.
              Funny thing about those shamanistic cultures (you want evidence) is the core themes they shared with each other in the remotest of regions. From the arctic to the aboriginal Australian and all over the globe, shared similar practices and ritual grown of its utility—as an organism that came out of the earth. It’s incredible now how “civilized” man is a calcified, non-intuitive mechanical being that gained her superior way of thinking from a dumb accident of chance, now lives in a world of barriers but vehemently knows everything from inside the apartment. This is a relatively new way of challenging the Christian theme of creation, all be it, the same deprecating fashion that man is nothing. You want to challenge reality with some form of equation, but there is not enough ink and paper in the universe to describe in detail even one of them.
              Science can only be one part of the puzzle, or every other way of experiencing life is just plain wrong? Much of this has been figured out long ago (like the Dogon string theory and their descriptions of the atom) but it doesn’t take us anywhere. It’s certainly an interesting world though.
              When you prove to the world with the right evidence that it’s robotic automática and all the world lives in delusion but you, what of it? It’s much more fascinating in all its varieties, yet you seek to have a monochromatic world that all knows this one truth as the ultimate truth, you would then mirror the religions of the same ilk.

              Like

            10. I’m still waiting for evidence for your claims, Jim. Who are these Harvard botanists?

              Yep, it can be that every other way of experiencing live can be wrong. I’m waiting for evidence to show me otherwise.

              Thanks for trying to falsely claim that I’ve ever said that man is nothing. How unfortunate that you choose to do this. Happily, my world is not “monochromatic”. that is just your hope since I dare not to agree with you.

              Like

            11. You’ve really said nothing. Do your own research. Would a list of names help you? You support Nat geo only if it agrees with you. I’ve said nothing of magical claims and even provided evidence you conveniently dismiss. So please, what is man in your opinion but a cradle to crematorium existence and done?

              Like

            12. And again, no evidence given for your claims, Jim. Again, I don’t support anyone if they don’t have evidence. You want your sacred cows to be left alone but you want others to be made into hamburger.

              I’m disappointed you have chosen to refuse to support your claims.

              Like

            13. I gave you evidence of core shamanism. Developed independently around the world. But they were all just crazy I guess

              Like

            14. what you claim as “core shamanism” is no more evidence for magic than religion is evidence for it. Humans make up a lot of things. I’m still waiting for evidence for those things.

              Nice attempt to put words in my mouth. No, they weren’t crazy.

              They were ignorant humans who wanted to believe that there was some way to influence a world they had little control over.

              Like

            15. Ignorant? There you go putting your own words in your mouth. Societies that survived millennia without your special knowledge, where you use the same abstract speech that the religious use?

              Liked by 1 person

            16. again, you appear to appeal to the “noble savage” concept. Societies have ended and their members died in droves because they didn’t have the knowledge we know today. And where have I used the “same abstract speech that religion uses”? I would like some quotes, Jim.

              I would also point out you definitely use that same abstract speech you accuse me of. When you use appeals to popularity, appeals to personal incredulity, etc, you are using exactly what theists use.

              Again, core shamanism is something that has been made up to try to validate what you want to pretend is real, just like theists make up their “ground of being”, etc to try to pretend their favored delusion is true too.

              I’m still asking for evidence that this “core shamanism” exists as other than something humans have made up.

              Like

            17. And where have I used the “same abstract speech that religion uses”? I would like some quotes, Jim Quote-“We have quite a lot of theories for that if you are talking about the gravitic influence we see around galaxies that doesn’t seem to be from regular ol’ matter”. This statement lacks anything but speculation. It is rampant in the scientific community.
              If this is the glorious scientific life of bliss that is going to save the world by destroying piecemeal and daily, thinking you can fix it—that’s what they’ve all said. Every new interference with nature has myriads of unpredictability and continues to spoil the earth by attempting to save it.
              Because of the influence of Christo/western thought now science thinks it too, can dominate the earth and lord over it. Nature will have the last word. You’re thinking is so Christian it’s amazing you can’t comprehend that. But how could you? Same style, different name

              Like

            18. wow, you think that is abstract? No, it is what we see what is happening and we have theories for it.

              You seem to not understand a single thing about science or how it came to invent the computer, modern food, modern medicine, etc that you use with no problem.

              Your hypocrisy is rather amazing, but nothing new from the hypocrisy of theists.

              Nature may have the last word, but again you cannot show that your claims are true, can you, Jim? You have again shown that you can’t show evidence to support your claims.

              You’ve yet again failed to show that my thinking is “christian” at all, Jim. I’m still waiting for the great and wonderful Chinese philosophers you have made claims about. Where is the evidence that any belief in magic is true?

              Like

            19. I’ve discussed many points of view on this blog that are not necessarily mine. I do it because it interest me. You failed to answer the question yet continue to accuse me of something I never said. Really, you’re kind of an asshole ignoring questions (special pleading) and making false accusations looking to fight. . Very Christian indeed. That influence also guides how scientific discovery is used in attempt submit the earth to a different kind of will. If you want to comment here any more please read the article and comment on what you know, because you read to find fault instead of content.
              You’ve also accused me of being scientifically illiterate, which is blatantly false, but you seem to like to butt into a theme and start throwing accusations. I don’t think I can be more clear that I believe nothing, but what’s really funny here is you do, and it’s the electronic savior in the theme of Christian behavior.

              Like

            20. again, you have made various claims to have evidence for these things that you now claim you don’t “neccessarily have”.

              How classic. Funny how I’ve not ignored a single question, but please do show me where i have if you want to make that claim.

              I have no problem in showing that you are scientifically illiterate with your incompetence regarding the image of the atom and with gravity, with dark matter, etc.

              Still waiting for your evidence for your claims. See my prior comment to see all of the times you’ve refused to give evidence for your claims.

              I am not surprised by your threats and again false claims against me. I read the article, and I do comment on what I know.

              Like

            21. Have you ever heard of philosophy? You believe you are right about everything, yet the outcomes of your beliefs have people mining rare earth metals at gunpoint in the Congo. Your way of thinking is powerful, but it is immoral, not superior. Yours has curbed evolution to save every deformity and disease. Clinging to you faith in science there will be little or no nature left to be nature. How many have to die so you can save the world with technology?
              Think of it this way; in our current western culture (whether science or religion) our goal is to subdue the earth and be lord and master over it. Now we apply fixes and simultaneously continue to interfere with nature. Now take some older cultures that taught their children that they came out of the earth, not into it, but from it? It harbors an existence of flow, like the Tao for instance, or the Kogi of Columbia who taught their children to be caretakers. It absolutely matters how you view the world. I grew up in a logging community where we were taught the value of the mountains was in the ore and board feet of timber. That was its value. While the Kogi were taught as children that the earth was their mother and the forest gives them life. Which worldview would pace our consumption and sustain us indefinitely?
The twist in philosophy that now dominates every culture, now in competition for those resources cause war and the destruction of our planet. They teach humility and restraint to please god while simultaneously having no restraint nor respect for creation, or even the life that’s on it.
              You’ll have your eden and all the technological bliss and live in a cesspool to claim your superior way of life.

              Liked by 1 person

            22. philosophy is coming up with ideas on how the world might work and finding out that most of the ideas fail.

              Again, where is your evidence for your claims, Jim. And again, nice try to lie and claim I think I’m right about “everything”. Why do you find you need to create a strawman, Jim?

              If you don’t like technology, I suggest walking the walk and stop using computers, modern medicine, etc. Otherwise, you are simply a hypocrite.

              I agree that we have an overpopulation problem. Few are willing to admit that. It doesn’t make technology bad.

              Like

            23. I never lie. I’m not spending hours with you because no matter what I write your personality is contrary. I’m not the first you’ve berated unjustly. If I can’t express ideas or even a thought I think I’ve had on my own free WordPress site then fuck off. I’ve not made and claims. Your so wrapped up in pretending to be a scientist you’ve forgotten to be human.
              You’ve berated an idea by attacking and accusing the messenger, which is another religious trait you’ve espoused to accommodate your superiority complex.

              Like

            24. you have repeatedly made claims and despite my asking for evidence, you refuse. That’s all anyone needs to know about your consideration of the truth. I have listed those claims and where I asked for evidence. Shall I again?

              I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. I’ve asked it repeatedly
              “And what evidence do you have that “nature” (define that please) is more than the physical world? ”
              What “missing material”? We have quite a lot of theories for that if you are talking about the gravitic influence we see around galaxies that doesn’t seem to be from regular ol’ matter.
              Now, if you are making some claim that something is missing but it isn’t some gravity using thing, then what it is you claim is “missing”? What “should” be here?
              And what Chinese philsophies discuss this stuff that should be here and how do they define this stuff?
              Again, waiting for evidence that eastern ideas have any basis in reality. You had mentioned some 3000 year old Chinese beliefs but you have not told me what they are when I have asked. Why not?
              “There is a lot of evidence that ideas and thoughts come from somewhere outside your own brain.”
              what is this evidence? You’ve made the claim, I do expect you to support it.
              and can you show that Chinese or Hindu philosophy is right or true?
              Please do indicate where i use special pleading.

              All you have left is attempts to attack me personally with false claims again. Thanks for showing that you have entirely lost it by claiming I’m not human. That’s the last refuge of quite a few people in history who got upset when their claims were countered by reality. They aren’t people I would want to be associated with.

              Like

            25. Perfect. Thank you for making claims that I’ve made claims. You said I “alluded” to something or other? What was that again? Maybe I didn’t and you’ve simply misunderstood.
              That a philosophy is true or not depends on your language and culture. Some culture and language is a softer approach to whether we use the world as a resource or a home. Curious, do you speak a second language? It appears the answer is no, because that would mean you would have insight over obstinance. It’s very American to feel superior yet at the same time appear ridiculous.
              “A different language is a different vision of life.”
              – Federico Fellini
              “You can never understand one language until you understand at least two.”
              – Geoffrey Willans
              The language structure of English is also a conditioning agent to assume certain orders exist where they are simply conditioned beliefs. Casi todo depende de tu punto de vista.
              I think it’s amusing that for 3-5000 years a select few have understood the game and what is going on behind the scenes of this dream we call life, yet you in your monotone and purely scientific, dehumanizing approach have said nothing of substance yet feel clever.
              You’ve never stated your beliefs. I asked for them. What are you afraid of, that your decision to believe nothing outside of your bad of skin and neurons? That’s not even scientific.

              Like

            26. again, you’ve made claims and have refused to support the claims you have made.

              That a philosophy is true or not is entirely dependent on evidence to support its claims. If the facts don’t support it, it’s just a delusion.

              And yet more quotes that are no more than baseless opinions.

              You have no idea what scientific means, Jim. And I have repeatedly told you my beliefs. But please do tell me which post is it that you asked me about my beliefs and where I didn’t answer.

              I’ve asked you repeatedly to show that I’m not just a bag of meat. You refuse. Why is that, Jim? Where is all of this evidence you claim exists that supposedly shows our thoughts don’t come from the brain?

              Like

            27. That a philosophy is true or not is entirely dependent on evidence to support its claims.”
              Here again you are incorrect and lack understanding. If Sam Harris philosophized on free will, and presented a case in thought for its absence, is he wrong? Do you ask him for names? When Dan Dennett offers a piece on the danger of ideas and beliefs people will die for (you have yours too) is he wrong? Do you ask him for names? Your entire concept of philosophy is flawed.
              There are many ways of being and perceiving reality (yours is one) and a good philosophy should provoke thought and improvement in the way we interact with the world. Some philosophies are kinder ways of approaching people and the environment. Yours is not, but that’s ok, it all adds to the kettle. Your way is calcified and rigid, requiring a microscope, while others historically have been more in tuned with the environment because they lived in it. You live in a concrete world of bricks and mortar, so it’s natural that you lack understanding of the natural world. So convinced your little piece of info is the way the whole world should be, is ridiculous considering.

              Like

            28. Yep, if Sam’s opinion wasn’t supported by reality, then he’s wrong. I’m wrong if my opinions aren’t supported by reality.

              It’s hilarious for you to tell me I don’t understand various philosophies when you can’t show that I’m wrong. Some opinions might be kinder, that doesn’t mean that they are true. And I also understand the natural world quite fine. No magic involved, no matter how many times humans like you try to inject it with no evidence for it at all.

              Again, your inability to think through your arguments shoots you in the foot again.

              And yep, I ask everyone for evidence. You, Dan Dennett, anyone at all. I do not idolize people who agree with me and declare that they and I can’t be questioned.

              Still no evidence to support your false accusations about me. Still no evidence for your claims of evidence supporting your nonsense.

              Your claims that you do have to support no matter if you are “exploring” or not.

              “We’re barely here if even at all. Some Chinese philosophies have pointed this out for 3000 years, yet you’d credit science with discovering this void of material without any real explanation at all, while simultaneously discrediting the other as “magic”. ”

              What are these philosophies?

              “A lot of scientists (not all) think that almost all the mass of our bodies comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks and the binding energy of the gluons, yet these are massless. ”

              Who are these scientists?

              “You speak with authority but even the physicist really don’t know what the hell is going on. ”

              Evidence for this?

              “Things are much stranger and varied than you will admit (determined atheism) so, you’ve closed your book.”

              Evidence for this?

              “So the Harvard botanists as well, were stumped and also agreed with Wade, so stop dodging. ”

              Who are these harvard botanists?

              “There is a lot of evidence that ideas and thoughts come from somewhere outside your own brain. ”

              what is this evidence?

              Like

            29. It appears you have a lot more time that I do to ponder your meaninglessness. There’s a reason I do only one minute blogs. I have a family and property to care for. You’ve shown that no answer I give is acceptable to you. You wiggle out with statements like this” Some opinions might be kinder, that doesn’t mean that they are true” isn’t the point to make life better and preserve the earth and its beauty and resources? What then, would make it true? It is obvious that a rigid scientific approach is not sustainable. That makes it false, using your own logic.

              Like

            30. I notice a trend that your MO is confronting people for being human and twisting the argument with accusations. If my post contained an “innuendo” or “alluded” to magical claims, then maybe it is in your interpretation where you constantly look to find fault.

              Like

            31. So, Jim, you’ve claimed I’m not human and now make false claims that somehow I “confront” people for being human. Just how and where have I done that. Again, I’m asking for evidence. You can cut and paste, correct?

              Like

            32. The first few comments in the thread will suffice. I clarified immediately that I was simply exploring other ways of seeing the world. You would rather argue, so you keep needling pointlessly. You call me a liar and have been obtuse throughout. I wrote the piece, I alone clarified my position that I believe nothing, yet that is not good enough for you.
              You have a rudimentary materialism. Ie; your cut and dry “yep” but things aren’t at all what they seem. Space is not empty at all. Astronomers have worked out that only about 5 per cent of our universe consists of baryons — the particles which make up atoms, which in turn make up molecules, which in turn make up everything we see, touch, smell, and taste.
              About 20 per cent is dark matter — a mysterious substance that interacts with our universe only through its gravitational pull — and the rest, a whopping 75 per cent, is dark energy, a cosmic field that permeates everything.
              We can hypothesize all we want, but some people have seemed to find connections to pieces we don’t understand, and that would be metaphysical, for now.
              What is very apparent is your way of atheism is oozing with christo/western thought. It abandoned religion to form another model of deprecation where life is nothing but a fluke.

              Like

            33. again, Jim tries to pretend that my comment doesnt’ exist and that he has not made claims and has refused to support them.

              You have tried to claim you were “just” exploring. Perhaps so, but again you still made claims, claimed that there was plenty of evidence to support these claims and then, when asked to show this evidence, you refuse.

              Again, you claim that astronomers have worked out that the universe is only about 5% baryons. That’s unlikely, since it is astrophysicists who would be doing this kind of work.

              You seem to have gotten your percentages from an article like this one: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-years-scientists-account-universe.html There is nothing about dark matter being something like The Force, permeating everything.

              There is no evidence that anyone, including your “some people” that you can’t name, have found anything like connections to the metaphysical or to show that the metaphysical even exists.

              Again, we have Jim having nothing but baseless claims and attempts at attacking me personally since he has nothing else.

              Life might be a fluke. That doesn’t depreciate it at all. It’s a wonderful fluke.

              Like

            34. I gave you evidence. You didn’t like the fact that your philosophy, your way of thinking has war being fought over who gets to plunder the earth. That there are kinder ways of being, but you handwave it all and accuse.
              I’ve discussed myriads of topics with never a problem. It’s my blog and discussion has been pleasant until you showed up with your egotistical rants.
              Many of the people that frequent this were instrumental in my deconversion. You come along and assume in ignorance and have driveled out a meaningless and repetitive accusations when really, you seem to have a superiority complex, eBaying a fight where there is none. You’re really boring me at this point.
              Oh, and the other evidence (core shamanism) is pretty good independent evidence where multiple philosophies agree with em each other. If it were science and not mystical you’d be all over that type of agreements. But you’ll have to take it up with them. I’ve got some voodoo cooking and have to get back to it. Maybe I’m just the right kind of atheist for you.

              Like

            35. No, you have not given evidence for the claims you’ve made. In my most recent post, I listed all of the claims you have made and have presented no evidence when I asked. If I am wrong, please do provide links to the posts that contain this evidence you claim to have provided.

              Again, there may be kinder ways of being, you have yet to show how being what *you* think is kinder to make something true.

              Again, no core shamanism, only what humans have invented because we are human, no need of some magic involved.

              The claim of your supposed boredom is suspect since you have again refused to support your claims. It seems that your “boredom” is an excuse you have invented to avoid admitting you have nothing.

              You again try to make a strawman to attack since you cannot actually address what I have actually said. How disappointing and cowardly.

              Like

            36. What part of shamanism are you referring to as magic? Is it possible you don’t know much about it? Enlighten me. I’m not going back over your comments to stroke your ego. Not only are you tactless and wrong headed, it’s boring to re-read a know it all

              Like

            37. Wade Davis is an anthropologist and ethnobotanist. As an explorer and researcher, Wade studies indigenous cultures and their use of plants for medicinal and spiritual purposes. His work has taken him from his home in British Columbia, Canada, to Borneo, Nepal, Peru, Haiti, Benin, Togo, and Greenland.

              EARLY WORK

              As a young man, Wade’s twin interests in anthropology and botany led him to exploration. He became familiar with the Iskut and other First Nations native to British Columbia.

              At age 14, Wade traveled to South America, alone, to pursue his passion. He collected more than 6,000 plant samples learned different properties and effects of plants by studying how indigenous cultures used them.

              Wade’s research later took him to Haiti, the setting of his most well-known books, Passage of Darkness and The Serpent and the Rainbow. In Haiti, Wade studied the plant-based poisons and medicines used in Haitian Vodou practices.

              Wade has degrees in anthropology, biology, and ethnobotany, all from Harvard University.
              To prove a philosophy is true you may have to get off your soapbox for a minute. If you look at the forest as a source of life, vs looking at the forest in dollars and board feet of timber, which one is more sustainable? It is true that how you view the world is not. Your science is only exacerbating the problem.

              Like

            38. This isn’t really a science blog. You’re oozing with bias. I read a lot of science and a variety of other things. Myopia is your specialty, not mine.

              Like

            39. Again, you run when reality shows you wrong, Jim. It’s a shame you choose to do that. So much for your claims about how much you know about science. It’s easy to lie about the sciences when they don’t agree with you, and refuse to read something that might dare threaten your willful ignorance.

              It’s great that either you are claiming a blog page by NASA about the WMAP isn’t “really a science blog” or you are claiming your blog really isn’t a science blog. Which do you mean, Jim? either answer deserve much ridicule.

              Like

            40. Everything we call real is made of things that can’t be regarded as real.”—NEILS BOHR
              But you know much better.

              Like

            41. baseless opinion and an attempt to use the fallacy of the appeal to authority.

              “We’re barely here if even at all. Some Chinese philosophies have pointed this out for 3000 years, yet you’d credit science with discovering this void of material without any real explanation at all, while simultaneously discrediting the other as “magic”. ”
              What are these philosophies?
              “A lot of scientists (not all) think that almost all the mass of our bodies comes from the kinetic energy of the quarks and the binding energy of the gluons, yet these are massless. ”
              Who are these scientists?
              “You speak with authority but even the physicist really don’t know what the hell is going on. ”
              Evidence for this?
              “Things are much stranger and varied than you will admit (determined atheism) so, you’ve closed your book.”
              Evidence for this?
              “So the Harvard botanists as well, were stumped and also agreed with Wade, so stop dodging. ”
              Who are these harvard botanists?
              “There is a lot of evidence that ideas and thoughts come from somewhere outside your own brain. ”
              what is this evidence?

              Like

            42. You’re very confident but have a real issue sharing or discussing, let alone understanding different viewpoints or ideas, which is most of my blog over the past several years. Ideas to discuss. Obviously it’s effective since you can’t stop popping up, but unlike you, most offer something other than photoshopped images of atoms. Everyone gets my platform except you. Maybe you’re the problem. I’ve briefly touched on other ways of interpreting the world. Sue me. And please, your demeanor is simply offensive Andrea. Your stuck trying to prove authoritarian from a post everyone else has moved on. Please get some help.

              Like

            43. Your so certain your way of life is superior? Look around you. Take a drive through your “progress” and claim it is good? This way of religious thinking that is also infiltrating your science is wrecking the world like never imagined. Only is it not superior, it is not sustainable. So much for the wisdom of the savages

              Like

            44. My way of life is quite good. We don’t have the death rates of the past thanks to science, we have less slavery thanks to automation, we can investigate the universe. Now compare this to your need to pretend that there is some magical force that you have yet to show exists. Those magical forces are the same as the various gods invented by humans, always retreating before science and reality.

              The universe is wonderfully vast and interesting. No one needs to try to pretend that there is some imaginary magic behind it to explain it.

              What is this “religious thinking” you are so on about, Jim? We have science that can fix what we’ve screwed up before. Your magic can’t do that.

              I really wish it could, but wishful thinking is as effective as prayer e.g. not at all.

              Like

            45. Now compare this to your need to pretend that there is some magical force that you have yet to show exists”. Where did I do that? Maybe you didn’t read the post.

              Like

            46. and here we go with you playing the “I didn’t say that verbatim” game. Again, Jim, you have made claims about how shamanism supposedly works; how great other philosophies are, and in every case, refused to present evidence when I have asked for it.

              Like

            47. You are quite narrow. You have one discipline that makes you so. So sorry for you. Your views will change with the next expert opinions or gravitational wave that saves the world with long life and overpopulation. Nice belief system you’ve got there.

              Like

            48. You only have your intentionally baseless opinion, Jim. It’s is unfortunate that you have tried to create a strawman to attack rather than myself.

              No, my views will not change with someone’s opinion. My views will change with evidence.

              I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. I’ve asked it repeatedly

              “And what evidence do you have that “nature” (define that please) is more than the physical world? ”

              What “missing material”? We have quite a lot of theories for that if you are talking about the gravitic influence we see around galaxies that doesn’t seem to be from regular ol’ matter.
              Now, if you are making some claim that something is missing but it isn’t some gravity using thing, then what it is you claim is “missing”? What “should” be here?
              And what Chinese philsophies discuss this stuff that should be here and how do they define this stuff?

              Again, waiting for evidence that eastern ideas have any basis in reality. You had mentioned some 3000 year old Chinese beliefs but you have not told me what they are when I have asked. Why not?

              “There is a lot of evidence that ideas and thoughts come from somewhere outside your own brain.”
              what is this evidence? You’ve made the claim, I do expect you to support it.

              and can you show that Chinese or Hindu philosophy is right or true?

              Please do indicate where i use special pleading.

              Alas, I have to admit that a twit of a Christian named Michael is right when he points out that atheists can be very silly when they end up believing in nonsense they can’t show to be true any more than they can show Christianity to be true.

              Like

            49. There is a lot of evidence that ideas and thoughts come from somewhere outside your own brain. The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.
              Nikola Tesla

              Like

            50. I claim the Chinese and Hindu have a different philosophy than the west. You really need me to support that evidence? Can’t you grasp that some people see the world differently? Maybe it’s worth a moment of your time, but you’re pretty arrogant. Why are you dismissing the shamanic evidence when you know nothing about it? Are you bored? Tesla was right about many things. Others have had the same experience, like Thomas Paine and many others. Are they all wrong too because you read a science book?

              Liked by 1 person

            51. There are as many ways of seeing “the cosmos” from the micro to the macro, as there are thinking individuals observing the phenomena of life and their own reactions to it all. This is an amazing blog, Jim. The more I read about life here, the more “humbled” I become because I realize I know less and less, and that really is the whole point. I think that when I am on the point of physical death, I would like to be able to truthfully think (if I can’t verbalize it to someone) that I can admit to knowing nothing. All I would have are memories and experiences. And then, perhaps, to quote Gene Roddenberry, “to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before!” We can never achieve such a thing if we enter this new path with preconceived notions, ideas and conditions. Why not let the unknown be the unknown? As you probe the possibilities of what makes up what we call life, or creation, so I probe my own mind to attempt to put my ducks in a row for the coming journey. 🤨

              Liked by 1 person

            52. I am truly fascinated with discovery and science, but the Hebrew influence has destroyed its usefulness. I know they wouldn’t like this, but what Christianity has influenced the masses to subdue the earth, confront it as lord and master, has carried over into the scientific community. And nearly every great breakthrough leads to more and more destruction. Green energy is a great example of that. Creating toxins we can’t rightfully deal with and using more and more fossil fuels and toxins in the manufacturing of wind and solar than if we just kept burning gas. We harness the rivers (75,000 dams in the US) and burn biomass (trees) at the expense of any living thing that gets in the way. This in not good enough evidence for Club, that other philosophies have a kinder approach to all life, but these are hardly able to function due to competition forced by a distasteful way of life.

              Like

            53. …plus the growing exploitation and pollution from the extraction of ingredients to manufacture Li-Ion batteries which will, by 2025, create more carbon emissions than would fossil fuel burning engines. The problem with man’s civilization is that it is exponentially reaching its maximum level of entropy. Very soon all technological developments will be entirely on the negative side of the equation, whether science-worshipers accept this or not. Currently science is the all powerful monster god that feeds technology which in turn fuels weapons manufacturing and facilitates greater extraction of dwindling raw resources with directly attributable air, land and potable water pollution. Man’s technology is literally killing the planet and converting it entirely to a truly non-polluting system would mean the re-designing of all of civilization’s support systems. In plain language that would mean the end of civilization. Man made a Faustian bargain with forces he knows nothing about and the consequences, already being felt world wide, are going to be unimaginably disastrous. Not being predictive, just using simple actuarial projection.

              Liked by 1 person

            54. The sheer arrogance is illustrated in the fact that the mindset believes it can use more resources to use less resources. That it can somehow accept good intention as a form of “noble” pollution. That the very máquinistic mindset that created the problem is the very problem it tries to fight with bigger machines. There is only one right answer and it will never happen—we’ll all go down together—one says science will save us, the other says Jesus will. The right answer is neither. Less of both and shut down the grid and let nature be nature is our only chance, but we’ll keep putting high tech patches on bald tires.

              Like

            55. and can you show that Chinese or Hindu philosophy is right or true?

              Yep, I do need you to support that with evidence. You’ve made baseless claim after baseless claim. I’m not arrogant when I ask for evidence. That’s what anyone does if they want information.

              That you think that it is arrogant to ask for information is notable. I know quite a bit about shamanic claims. I am again asking for evidence.

              Nope, not bored, but nice try to again avoid giving evidence for your claims by casting aspersions against me. Again, Tesla was wrong about many thing and right about many things too.

              Still waiting for evidence. Where did Thomas Paine experience what? shamanism? Again, evidence please. People can be wrong because they have no evidence and are dependent on wishful thinking, just like any other believer in magic, including Christians.

              Your argument is no more than an appeal to popularity e.g. “many people believe in …….” which is no evidence that “x” is true.

              Where is this “shamanic evidence” you want to claim I know nothing about?

              Like

            56. Something with that foto of the atom seems off to me. If this were truly to scale and the pic is about 2cm between the needles, about 200,000,000 atoms would fit in the suspended area. An atom is about 10-10 meters (or 10-8 centimeters) in size. This means a row of 108 (or 100,000,000) atoms would stretch a centimeter, about the size of your fingernail. Atoms of different elements are different sizes, but 10-10 m can be thought of as a rough value for any atom. This doesn’t look right to me.

              Like

            57. No, but I can do math. If that’s really 2 mm between points you could fit about 2,000,000 of these atoms between the probes. The article says that, but the scale of the photo is 1-2 cm. Simple math. You’re sounding like a believer, complete with special pleading. So much for you ladle of molten bullshit

              Like

            58. so you are using an appeal to personal incredulity. Expected. Please do indicate where i use special pleading.

              what does the scale of the photo have to do with anything? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/trapped-atom-photograph-long-exposure-competition-spd/

              still waiting for any evidence of magic at all, Jim. My ladle of molten steel will stand up against any claims of mind over matter and that the universe is somehow not as we see it and experience it.

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s