You said you call yourself an agnostic because you can't prove that God doesn't
exist. Why would you think it necessary to prove a negative. You're a closet
atheist. You see no evidence of God's existence. I see no evidence of elves and
fairies, but I don't feel that I need to prove their non-existence. I assume
it. If, deep in your heart, you feel that there's a possibility that God does
exist, you're an agnostic. But everything you write in every one of your posts,
indicates that you're confident that God is man made. It's a matter of
linguistic precision. (smile)
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Agnosticism Again, was Re: Re: On the list,
conversations turning into duels
I can so, be both!
You did put your finger on the "old" Carl Jarvis. That fellow spent his days
worrying that he was not pleasing people, especially his mother. But Life
knocked me around and taught me that pleasing others was not the road to
anywhere but a dead end. So currently, No! I'm not trying to avoid offending
anyone by saying that I am indifferent toward God's plight. In my "Real Life",
the one that goes on after I log off, int that Life, I seldom think of, or
speak of God, or His existence...or lack thereof. But here, in Blind Democracy
Land, and to a lesser degree in ACB Chat, I am interested in exploring many
subjects, among which is the current topic of God's existence. For me, I am an
Agnostic because I am not able to prove that God does not exist...even though,
for me, all indications point in that direction.
Part of my reason for abandoning Christianity was the fact that there was no
relationship between the Word of God and the Real World.
Saying, "God moves in mysterious ways", does not suffice as an answer.
The Earth on which we do our plundering is not perfectly suited to Mankind.
The Universe is far from perfect. Yet it is taught by most religions, that God
is perfect and cannot look upon imperfection, much less create it. But even as
ignorant as we might be, we can see and feel the imperfections. Hot lava
spewing out of the bowels of Earth, the awful feeling of the Earth shaking
beneath our feet, the winds such as those of hurricane Irma, leveling the trees
and houses with
150 mile an hour winds, or the raging tornadoes and floods that destroy all in
their path. Humans have adapted to this world. We survive and flourish
because of our ability to adapt, not because of some "Perfect World". So, as I
said before, for me, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggest that God does
not exist.
Now, as one tomato plant to another, if we believe that God exists, even though
He does not, and we act as if He exists, and that He has certain laws that we
must uphold, and that we must serve Him mindlessly, and worship Him, and in the
case of Allah, we must always set His name aside with flattering phrases, then
certainly that will make a difference in how we live.
In both cases we are following Mankind's understanding of what rules will best
serve us. But in the one case we live in fear of making a mistake and
offending God, and in the other we live confidently, trusting our instincts.
And that is something that is funny to me. Whether we are Believers in a
Higher Power or simply following our own inner Being, we are doing the same
thing. What is the difference if I make up a God, and set down all of the do's
and Dont's, and try to live by them, or if I look inside myself and list those
rules that will make me the sort of person I choose to be, and try to live by
them.
But, very much like my understanding of the universe, my understanding of Human
Nature is imperfect. Still, looking backward, I can safely say that after
generations of perfecting Human belief in some sort of God, and creating
volumes of literature, and building in fear of contradicting His Mighty
Presence, Mankind is not suddenly going to wake up in the morning and say, "Hey
Ho! I've been deluded. There is no God!"
Carl Jarvis
On 9/17/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK. I'll bite. When you say that you are an agnostic, you're not
saying that you're indifferent. You're saying, because this is what
agnosticism means, that you are not sure whether or not there is a
God. That's an acceptable position. But if you say that, you can't
have it both ways. You cannot then say that you believe that God is a
creation of the human brain and still say that you're not sure if he
really exists. It's one or the other. Some atheists are so adamant
about their disbelief that they become missionaries in the same way
that some Christians become missionaries, insisting that their way of
thinking is the one and only correct way. So when I say I'm
indifferent, I mean that I don't have a need to convince everyone
around me that logically, one cannot believe in a deity. But I went
on to say that I am ignorant because I think there is a great deal of
mystery around the existence of our universe and its workings, like
why is it there, how did it get there, etc. I'm not sure that the
sciences can answer those ultimate questions. There's also mystery
around human consciousness because it is clearly different from that
of the tomato you were talking about or of the cats who have been part
of my household and whom I've loved. I know there are medical
explanations for consciousness, but again, they don't address the
ultimate question of the nature of human consciousness as opposed to
that of other primates. So if you tell me that you're an agnostic
because there are these basic questions that atheism doesn't address,
that makes sense to me. But it makes no sense to me if you say you're
an agnostic because you're indifferent to whether or not God exists. To me,
that sounds like you're just refusing to take a principled stand because it
might alienate people.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 11:00 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Agnosticism Again, was Re: Re: On the
list, conversations turning into duels
"indifferent, ignorant atheist"? Isn't that the same as an
Agnostic?(smile) I must admit that I do not want to spend gobs of time
defending my current posture as an indifferent, ignorant Agnostic,
because I might begin sounding as if I were proud of it. Nothing
could be further from the truth...whatever *that is.
While I agree with Roger...and you, that there is no God, the fact
is...in my ignorant, indifferent opinion, it does not matter. We are
here, by whatever reason, or lack of reason. Does the tomato plant
question how it got into the hothouse? Tomato plants have no
conception of the world outside their immediate plot. They might
think...if thinking is possible, that they are living in the perfect
place, made just for them. And they can prove it because they exist.
But tomato plants are much wiser than their Human friends. They keep
quiet, simply accepting that which is beyond their comprehension,
because they know...and I've been in contact with them...that it does
not matter in so far as their being alive and thriving.
If a goat wanders into the hothouse and tries chomping on one of the
tomato plants, the plants do not dream up some reason that some
imaginary God has decided to punish them because of their indifference
toward Him. There is no "moving in mysterious ways".
We conceited Humans believe that just because we learned to talk and
to write, that we are superior to tomato plants. Indeed, we believe
that we are superior to all life. Therefor we must be able to
understand how this great hothouse came into being. And when we can't
really grasp the enormity of it, we tell one another, "God created it
for us". And we stare into the blackness of the universe, which we
named in order to refer to it, rather than having to say, "the out
there", and we see little lights. Since we have not a single idea of
what they are, we call them "Angels". We feel the heat of our Sun and
we see it rise and fall each day, so we know that the Sun and the Moon
travel around the Earth. Our Earth is the center of the universe.
And it is flat, because we can see out to the edge.
Rather than admitting our ignorance, we Humans decide that there are
other places where super human Gods live. These Beings behave like
naughty Humans, only with super powers. Finally we become civilized
to the point of rolling all Gods into one Big Papa, All Mighty, All
Powerful, All Knowing God.
The proof, for most folk is the fact that our "hothouse" is made just
right for us. Forget the regular movement of the very ground we walk
on, or the hot lava spewed from deep within our "perfect" hothouse.
Forget the mighty winds or the failure of the rains, or the sweeping fires.
We close our minds and believe that some loving God made our perfect
world where life survives by cannibalizing life. A perfect world
where the strong survive and rule the weak. A world where God allows
slavery, and allows Men to dominate Women. On and on it goes.
If I truly cared, I'd say that all the "evidence', circumstantial as
it is, points to there being No God. But would that make a difference
in this place we call Mother Earth, or in this "perfect universe",
where the stars are rushing away from one another into something we
call "Space", to a destiny we will never know?
My frustration, if I have one, is that I'll never have the answers.
My Christian friends are content to believe that after they die, God
or Jesus will reveal all to them. But no one has ever returned,
despite Sylvia Brown, no one has ever come back to tell us if my
friends are right, or if I am.
But so what. Whether or not, this Hothouse works for us. And it will
continue working, unless we continue destroying it with our
thoughtless greed.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/16/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well Carl,
I consider myself to be an atheist because it seems pretty clear that
God, or at least the God that everyone talks about or writes about,
is a fantasy in the brains of human beings. But I'm also indifferent
to that fact which means that it isn't important to me one way or the
other, what other people believe. And it's obvious to me that I don't
understand the nature of things or the cosmos or the laws of physics
or what existence is or why I'm here, or what the true nature of
everything is. So perhaps I should describe myself as an indifferent,
ignorant atheist.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl ;
Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2017 5:02 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Agnosticism Again, was Re: Re: On the
list, conversations turning into duels
Roger,
Perhaps there is a better word for where my head is currently centered.
Agnostic is my choice because it best says what I am trying to put
across.
And that is Indifference! In my life, God plays no role. Neither
does Huckleberry Finn or the Wizard of Oz. Although when I read Tom
Sawyer, I had a boyish crush on Becky Thatcher. And in National
Velvet I ate my heart out over Elizabeth Taylor.
There are many things around me that I am indifferent to. There are
many that I do not think really exist. But if a young Elizabeth
Taylor came riding down the road, I would quickly become a Believer.
In my personal thinking, an Atheist is a person who has made a firm
decision that God does not exist. But then, is imagination real?
Can we prove that our imagination comes from within, or perhaps is
really that proof of God's existence that Atheists so boldly announce
does not exist? As they say in that imaginary movie, "Frankly my
dear, I don't give a damn."
I've mentioned before that i gave up worrying about most labels. If
someone cares to call me an Atheist instead of an Agnostic, so be it!
I like the word Agnostic...right or wrong. In my life I have
encountered a number of strange occurrences. When I was a Christian,
I assigned them to be signs from God. But in the light of day, my
day, I could tell that they had no Godly meaning. Random occurrences
was what they were.
But none of it matters beyond the fact that so long as we Humans need
some All Powerful Father to guide and protect us, we will never stand
on our own two feet. We will never take responsibility for our
actions. We will never admit that there is more that we do not know
about the Universe in which we live, than that which we do know.
Yet, if someone actually had a photo or a recording of God, I would
not go about trying to deny Him. But I would have a great quantity
of questions...mostly regarding His sanity.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/16/17, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As long as you are more interested in my ideas than the articles I
post I think I will take that as an opportunity to ask another
challenging question about agnosticism. This occurred to me just
after the exchange on proving negatives wound down and I have been
waiting for the discussion to turn in that direction again so that I
could make this point. But since it wasn't turning that direction
right now and since I wanted to say this anyway I will take it that
you want to hear my ideas as an invitation. If you are an agnostic
because you cannot prove the negative that god does not exist then
are you an agnostic about fairies?
Are you an agnostic about unicorns? Are you an agnostic about
leprechauns? How about fictional characters? When you read a novel
are you an agnostic about all the characters in that novel? Are you
a Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn agnostic? Are you a Frodo Baggins
agnostic or a Gandalf the wizard agnostic? If there are any of these
things that you can just say about them that you don't believe that
they exist then how do you decide what to be agnostic about and what
to just not believe in?
On 9/16/2017 11:02 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Here Here, Miriam!
Well said. As one who sometimes crosses the line...or trips on it,
I'll try to stay on the side of conversation. I, too, am
interested in exchanging ideas.
What I say next is in no way meant to defend either Roger or
Bonnie, they are both capable of doing so on their own behalf. But
I do want to say that I have great respect for Roger's opinions.
While I often read some of his posted articles, I am more
interested in his own thoughts.
And my dear friend, Bonnie. I think I first met Bonnie back in
another life, in down town Seattle, when Tony, her late husband,
was selling K Pro computers in a small office somewhere in the
bowels of the City. When Cathy and I moved to Quilcene, there in
nearby Port Townsend was Bonnie and Tony, working hard in their
small business, which, as I recall, included a bakery, a computer
store and a UPS store...I think. But that was nearly a quarter of a
century back.
Tony, a Blinded Veteran, who was also a diabetic, along with
Bonnie, had gathered a small group of blind diabetics into a
support group in Port Townsend. Although I am neither diabetic or
a veteran, Cathy and I were invited to join in. That was in 1995.
The next Fall, at our Washington Council of the Blind state
convention, we submitted a request for membership. And so, with
Tony as our chapter president, Jefferson County Council of the Blind was
born.
After Tony's death, Bonnie continued to attend our monthly meetings
and offered her skill as an O&M teacher, for anyone in need. The
state had no O&M person on the entire Olympic Peninsula. A few
years ago, Bonnie's work moved her into Clallam County, and kept
her busy on the days our group met. Although Bonnie and I see the
world through very different eyes, we are friends. At least the
last time I checked. I can only hope that my differences are as
important to her as hers are to me.
And I hope Bonnie is okay with my remembrances, since I failed to
ask her if I could take her hand and wander a bit in the past.
Carl Jarvis
On 9/16/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It would be wonderful if our conversations could stay at the level
of the interchange of ideas and experiences and gentle statements
of disagreement with each other from time to time. That is, I
think, the purpose of discussion on email lists. Unfortunately,
some people use these email lists as a means to express their
aggressive tendencies. When they do so, I suspect that they are
unaware of the motive behind the behavior. But debate can easily
turn into bullying. Taking on the role of instructor toward
another person when that person never asked for instruction is
another way that this happens. Sometimes, people just snipe at
other people or make unpleasant comments about something they've
posted, as a personal putdown.
People say things that I doubt they'd say if we were all together
in a room, sipping wine and eating snacks. It seems to me that
especially at this time of real danger for freedom, democracy, and
the continuation of life on earth, we should be using this
wonderful means of communication at our disposal to treasure each
other, to nurture and support each other, and to let go of our
anger and disapproval when people say things with which we disagree.
Miriam
