The Crack that Lets the Light In

Yeah. They can be deceptive.

Science can tell us lots about "the origins of life and the universe and cosmological phenomena...but it certainly cannot tell us if those origins are the result of just the way things developed...or of a god using that method to create what it wants to create.

The notion that science tells us great truths on the issue of "Are there any
gods?" is an absurdity, Hightor. Scientists cannot tell us what WAS before the Big Bang...or even if there WAS anything before. We humans almost certainly know just a tiny, tiny little mote of what there is to know...and our understanding of existence is probably much, much, much closer to the "science" of pre-history than to what is needed to know about existence.

There was a time when "science" said that the Earth was at the center of the universe...with absolutely no thoughts about the cosmos. The "scientists" of those days thought they were truly intelligent...and were purveyors of great truths and knowledge.

Today, our scientists think they are.

They may not be.




"Beliefs" in the context of "Are there any gods?" are guesses. BLIND GUESSES. Most people who say, "I 'believe' X...do 'believe' X...that is, they guess X to be correct."

What study has to be done on that?

I certainly agree that any guesses "beliefs" that at least one god exists and is the explanation of EXISTENCE...is unverifiable. So...I argue that the statement, "There is a GOD" should not be made, because the person making it cannot meet the burden of proof that accrues.

By the same token, the statement, "No gods exist" is unverifiable...so the statement should not be made because the person making it cannot meet the burden of proof that accrues.

That is all I have been saying.

You missed the point. The beauty of scientific research is precisely that it doesn't treat god as a problem to be solved or a phenomenon to be investigated. It treats the universe as a natural system, not a supernatural one. You can't objectively study a being which is posited as beyond our comprehension and capable of anything – including making itself unknowable! If I want to speculate on the origins of life and the universe I'm more satisfied with the evidence provided by science – even when inconclusive – than the simplistic explanations of storytellers.

We had a beautiful rain last night. Something to ward off threatened drought.
I often think of my ex boss at the apartments. She saw ghosts. She pored over photographs my coworker took of a famous ghost site pointing out potential sign of supernatural activity. If you wanted to terrify her all you had to do was make it seem you might know of a Ouija Board on the property. She often was annoyed with me for giving it all no credence. I always gave her a friendly smile when she gave me that look. She eventually lost her job because we sank to and hovered at 70% occupancy. When the new manager reported she tried to sabotage her, mistakenly blaming her for taking her job away. She stole a trove of photos showing the history of the property. We were well rid of her.

Let's get off that, because we are not discussing that issue presently, and do not have to discuss it at all for the purposes of THIS discussion.

We are talking about "The crack that lets the light in"...which I consider to be the (I acknowledge as agnostic) position that I have on the question, "Are there are gods...or are there no gods?" (A HUGELY IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR OUR TIMES AND THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW.)

I am saying that "There is a GOD" and "There are no gods" are both position that should not be taken because anyone taking either position assumes a burden of proof that cannot be met. (We can talk about likelihood at another point.)

But will you address my contention that, "There is a GOD" and "There are no gods" are both position that should not be taken because anyone taking either position assumes a burden of proof that cannot be met?

Or do you see some fault with my reasoning that should be discussed?

“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”
― Charles Bukowski

I only believe in acceptance as an atheist. I no longer need to argue against the god-pushers. I've bled out the trauma they created in me. That's why I say that atheists don't need to justify, don't even need a reason to be one. The crack that lets in the light. Don't bother me with your negativity.

Learn to direct your remarks to the person to whom you intend them to be directed. Don't bother me with your cowardice.

Frank Apisa, 2022

Don't tell me what you "believe" and then tell me you are a non-believer." It makes no sense.

Frank Apisa, 2022

It's not cowardice, saying you don't want to talk to certain individuals.

And when I told you what the problem was you told me to go and **** myself.

It's not cowardice that's at fault here, it's your disagreeable nature.

You could take that on board, but you're more likely to tell me that I've got no place to talk because I live in a country with an established church.

And then tell me to go and **** myself.

Had those arguments before. Not the slightest bit interested. No dick swinging arguments from this quarter.

I'm asking that the integrity of the thread be respected.

And I am supporting Edgar on this.

The subject of the thread is: The Crack that Lets the Light In.

Let's keep it to that.

So do it, allow the atheists their own space without having constantly to respond to your mantra.

Emancipation. Deists are free to believe.
Agnostics are free to ponder.
Atheists are allowed to exist.

And Buddhists can **** right off.

(I hate using the term lol, but please don't take this seriously.)

I seriously considered becoming a Buddhist in the late 60s.

Another agnostic here.

Welcome. I would offer some tea, but it's too warm here this day.

I’ve nothing bad to say about nihilists. They never had any crusades, though. No holy city, clergy and no evangelicals either.

The nihilists in The Big Lebowski were my favorites, but they did seem to care about some stuff, so…

That was a great movie!