Scotties Toy Box

December 21, 2018

Response to Rohit in video form. Hugs

Filed under: Atheism, Creator, Ideas, Nature, News, Reason — Scottie @ 14:32


  1. Hi Scottie;
    You invited me into this conversation yesterday, well, looking at the time, I guess it would be the day before… but, I had to work that night and wow, was it ever a lot to unpack. You two have had interesting conversation going. So, I hope you don’t mind, but I’ll put in my two cents worth….
    My central impression of this conversation was that Rohit was someone who has done a fair bit of reading and searching, but he is coming from the presumption of God, in one form or another, where you clearly stated that belief was not yours and you saw no evidence presented to give anything but circumstantial or colloquial – ie: just because someone believes something true doesn’t mean it is in fact true – explanations. Scientific method calls for evidence, not feeling or “I don’t know, must be God” explanations.
    You and I don’t necessarily agree on the idea of God. I come from a childhood where I went to church and even took classes in a Christian based college. What I have come to understand about myself is that my belief in God is very much a part of my culture and upbringing, but is also a choice. I simply believe that there is more to this life than the corporeal existence we call life, which makes for some interesting ends in our conversations because I come to the end and realize that despite a lack of scientific evidence, I believe what I believe.
    That faith, I think, is cause for both celebration and caution. To be consistent in one’s beliefs despite a lack of evidence is the definition of faith and is a trait highly regarded in Christianity. It gives me hope, a sense of belonging and continuity, and a comfort that is difficult to describe. But, it can very easily become a cause of abuse to one’s self and others. For instance, you and I just recently had a really fantastic conversation about the way some are so ready to depart this corporeal life for heaven. Indeed, some do not live life to the fullest planning instead to make up for it in some afterlife scenerio. And, how often have we seen how the belief in God, Allah, Shivah, etc., has fostered a willingness to project abuses and demands upon others to uphold conduct and thought that aren’t their own? We have seen all to often how religion has been an excuse for abuse towards lgbtq, race, religion, rich/poor, mental health, and even if someone is left handed! Religion has excused slavery, rape, murder, genocide, neglect, greed, and all sorts of dark behavior all “In the Name of God”. Conversely, one’s beliefs can help to color the most beautiful things in this world, give hope and shine love upon all everything around us.
    Quite simply, although this was a labor intensive exercise for you, I am really proud of Rohit for having the courage to put his thoughts out there and risk being forced to defend them. Can’t be easy. I also think you did a great job in helping him learn the necessity of making a clear argument. You did good, my brother.


    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by randy — December 22, 2018 @ 01:23

    • Hey Brother, glad to hear from you. You are welcome to jump in on any conversation. I agree with what you wrote. If a person has a personal faith that comforts them and gives them peace I think that is great. I have often compared that type of faith to a code of conduct for life.

      I think it would be great to have an existence after this life is over. My problem with the ones proposed by different religions is there is no evidence for the next lives the claim.

      My issue with what Rohit was advocating was he wanted to take a well known energy, electromagnetic wave was what he used, and then claim it was a deity or god. Well we know this energy and its properties quite well and it is a natural part of our reality, there is no evidence it is something more than a natural phenomenon. He never really defined what makes this energy special. He has written several times and it seems we are stuck with a problem of what each of thinks the words god and deity means.
      Keep giving your input Brother, I have always said you are very smart. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 06:16

  2. Sir, i feel that there is a mixture and confusion about the origin of ‘God’, ‘Religion’ and ‘Mythology’ in your statement and their metaphorical representation in the scriptures.
    And sir, i’m not bolstering the theory of God because I am not a believer and i’m just putting my thoughts in front of you so that you can counter them and correct them and also give substantial proof for me to believe in non-existence of God because you’re making a claim here and you need evidence to prove that claim.
    I’m an agnostic and i need something substantial to believe in. The theists have given the theory of ‘VRT’ and ‘the theory of having a beginning’ but the atheists have just flayed that but have not given any proof for refuting it, they’re doing the same thing of which they accuse the theists.
    I was an ardent non-believer at a time but after witnessing a few things and reading and understanding a few things i came to be an agnostic. I wanna believe in something again and i need proof for that which no one is providing.
    And you talked about ‘Shiva’, sir, did you know that the presence of water in Milky Way and how water came on earth have already been described in the Hindu scriptures and it has been done using the names ‘Shiva’ and ‘Ganga’ metaphorically. The names are not names of God, they are metaphorical representations to explain certain things in an interesting way using stories.
    So we are just flaying things without actually understanding what they really are.
    And thank you sir, for replying and taking the pain of typing for an unknown person and i respect that.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 02:06

    • Rohit, in your first paragraph you say I am making a claim. I see it the other way. I feel you are making the claim that electromagnetic wave energy has properties that are not already discovered. But as I mentioned to Randy we know very well what the energy is, how it is produced , what it does, and that it is a natural part of reality.

      I said that if you wanted to promote the idea of a deity / god as an energy that surrounds everything and is in all life, then you need to show the new energy that has not been discovered already by scientist. As I said that is the same idea from the Star Wars movies, the force the jedi’s use to do their many extra natural actions.

      I do not understand your need to have something to believe in. Try believing in yourself. Believe in being a great person. Believe in those around you that you respect.

      I have explained several times atheist have nothing to disprove. I explained that point clearly. The one making the positive claim has the burden to provide the evidence for that claim. The reason there is atheist is theist have not been able to produce the evidence to change the disbelief to belief. Try thinking of it this way. You say you have ten apples. I ask you to produce the apples and you don’t. I ask for evidence for these apples you claim to have, but you don’t give me any evidence. So I don’t believe you have ten apples. I am not required to prove you have prunes or oranges instead of apples. I don’t have to prove anything nor provide these other fruits. I simply do not believe you have the ten apples because you did not give evidence of them. Does this help clear that point up?

      Rohit, I do not recall mentioning an Hindu deity by name. I simply do not know anything about Hinduism. I am ignorant of what the beliefs of Hinduism are. However I seriously doubt the scriptures of Hindu gives an straightforward way water formed on earth. Water came to earth from asteroids and ice chunks in space hitting Earth. Now I have seen Christians and Muslims try to twist and force verses from their holy books to claim that scientific discoveries made in the last 200 years somehow were written about in their holy books 1600 to 2500 years ago. So if the holy book said “Water came from the heavens” that is not useful as proving that those people knew about the way water collected on Earth.

      I think the conversation is a good one and one worth having. But I think we are going in circles around each other. I am going to go look at your next comment to see if there is a new point there. Be well and happy. Keep look and you may discover something grand. Hugs


      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 06:42

      • Sir, i mentioned about higher consciousness and gave scientific evidences and if you can refute it then please do so because no one has given any substantial proof to refute that and opposite to what you said sir, VRT is widely accepted. So that indicates the existence of a higher consciousness (God) and the burden of proof is now on the atheists to disprove the existence of God.
        And sir you paid no heed to all that i had written in previous comment and you did it just like the media does ‘take only half of what is there and then turn it, twist it and show it to the public’.
        If atheists have nothing to disprove then why not call themselves agnostics? why are they so arrogantly ‘proving’ the non-existence of God? Why do they react hubristicly whenever quantum physics hints towards the existence of God.
        And now, i have tried a lot to make you understand the difference between God, religion, mythology and literature but you are still mixing them all so i’m sorry sir i cannot write a book in the comment section that would be a real pain for my hand. Maybe someday, like you said, i write a book (wish me luck for that) then i might be able to make you understand that or maybe you already know it all and i might just clear the confusion, whatever may the case be.
        And yes i had accepted earlier also that ‘energy as God’ is my thinking but what about ‘higher consciousness’? The problem is that you’re refuting things which i have already accepted are debatable. I gave accept that ‘God’ is energy is my thinking and why i think that well i wrote that and i’m not gonna do that again. And sir, when you say that we know all that there is about energy then sir that is absolutely wrong because scientists themselves have accepted that there’s a lot to be discovered about energy and waves. But, i’m not saying that my idea is absolutely correct but i can also not refute my premises because there is nothing scientifically known about conciousness so, my conclusion is ‘debatable’ and not wrong and there were other premises and other conclusions as well but it is just not possible to write them down here so, we can just leave my proposals here and talk about the God that scientists speak about.
        Sir, it is true that how water came on earth has been described in religious books (metaphorically) in the form of interesting story and in the same way the Big Bang is also there.
        Okay, for a moment if we accept that they twist and turn the verses to give a scientific meaning to it but that can be possible for a few verses not for hundreds and thousands of them ( sounds pretty substantial to me).
        And again you made a claim here that they twist their verses then how do you say so when you haven’t even read it? (So i believe).
        Sir, you are making word salads here and accusing me of that. You gave the example of 10 apples now why don’t you apply it on your own logic and see you’re acting the same way. And if you say that you’re not disproving anything (in fact you’ve done so) then you’re not an atheist but an agnostic because atheists believe in non-existence of God and agnostics are the people who are not disproving God and also not believing in God they just seek answers through rebuttals with theists and atheists. So either get your dictionary changed or your status changed.
        Noun: atheist


        Someone who does not believe in god; someone who believes that no deities exist
        And talking about importance of Religion then sir there are courses which teach how religion has played a keyrole in history, politics, society, thinking of people and how it is important for us. It is just not possible for me to write all that here or maybe if i write my book then i can tell you.
        If you don’t understand the need to believe in anything then sir that is what agnosticism is about. In fact your question is quite lame, i mean yes obviously i need to believe in something and if you don’t understand that then that’s your fault i want to believe in something because i need it and if you don’t then that’s not my fault. But if you call yourself an atheist (which you do) then you’re also believing in something, ‘a belief in the non-existence of God’ (common sense).
        And yes sir i believe in myself otherwise i wouldn’t be writing such long tirades to theists and atheists. And I also believe in being a great person by removing bigotry from society.
        And sir i have given the proof which science gives for existence of God and it is upto you to refute that (which even scientists cannot do properly) so i don’t understand why you’re asking the same question again and again and now yourself giving ‘word salads’.
        My conclusion is that, atheists are also doing the same thing as theists, ‘flogging a dead horse’ and it is not that they are bringing ‘a new order’ as Dawkins says.
        And sir, please read carefully this time and please don’t confuse between ‘God’ and ‘Religion’ this time. And to understand religion you need to know the fundamentals of religion and the fiction which is used in it out of necessity.
        And i also wanna say that, maybe we should end this because it is taking us nowhere we would just keep arguing in logics and after that rhetorics. Because it is really hard to get to an amicable point.
        And at last thank you for sharing your knowledge with me because like always it has helped me and is gonna help me in my long life ahead.


        Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 08:21

        • Rohit we need to establish what you are talking about. I can not get any results except for car taxes for VRT. I did find both virtual reality and simulated reality.

          Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could be simulated—for example by quantum computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from “true” reality. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation. This is quite different from the current, technologically achievable concept of virtual reality. Virtual reality is easily distinguished from the experience of actuality; participants are never in doubt about the nature of what they experience. Simulated reality, by contrast, would be hard or impossible to separate from “true” reality.

          You need to tell me which you are talking about. Virtual reality is a booming business. Simulated reality is basically a philosophical idea as I said before. There is no widespread scientific belief that we are living in a simulated universe on a computer screen somewhere. There is some uses of simulated reality in computing but again not what I think you are talking about .

          You might want to read this.
          Physicists Prove That Reality Is Not — Repeat, Not — a Computer Simulation

          What evidence for a higher consciousness have you given? I went over your comment line by line. I addressed all your ideas. I am not going to read further and comment yet on what you wrote this time as we need to be able to agree on what you are saying and what you mean. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 10:27

          • (No need to reply on this)
            This is still a question…
            How do we know that the future generation would be so advanced that it can alter the simulations that run the universe? Even if they do, then isn’t it absurd to assume that they’ll erase us?
            And again this is just a counter arguments which is speculating things and not giving a substantial proof so i can also not accept that.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 10:58

            • I took a few minutes to read several articles on the subject. Here is one that is easy to read and breaks the math down better. Hugs

              The conclusion: Based on everything we now know about physics and computers, it is mathematically impossible for the known universe to be a computer simulation. Theoretical physicists Zohar Ringel and Dmitry L. Kovrizhin–from the University of Oxford and the Hebrew University in Israel–published their findings in the prestigious journal Science Advances. If you speak math, you can read all about it .



              Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 11:03

              • I have mentioned my doubts in the previous comment. And it doesn’t completely refute the Simulation theory. It just gives a 50-50 chance.

                Liked by 1 person

                Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 11:08

                • The three articles I read, two of which I have linked to you say that the math rules it out. But as I am not a mathematician nor a physicist I will not argue on the subject. I will say I am not a believer in it. This is more a philosophical debate in my opinion. Besides it is like the topic of free will. It doesn’t matter if we have free will or not we have to act as if we do. Same with the simulation idea, it makes no difference as we have to act is if this is reality not a simulation. We have to deal with our reality as if it is real. Hugs


                  Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 11:14

                  • Okay sir, the rest i have mentioned in other comments.
                    Thank you.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 11:20

                    • Rohit Miles wants to comment on your blog, but he is being blocked. Can you assist him on that? Thanks. Hugs


                      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 13:12

                    • I don’t know sir why he has been blocked the comment section is open to all in my settings


                      Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 13:41

                    • Thank you. Hugs


                      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 13:41

                    • Tell him to try now


                      Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 13:42

    • Hi Rohit;
      I rarely address commenters on Scottie’s blog directly. But, I saw a couple points that I thought were needed to be highlighted in your above comment. Please excuse my paragrahing. I’m not a well schooled writer, so I tend to place paragraphs more to help me separate ideas than what my highschool english composition teacher would want of me.
      You said: “…give substantial proof for me to believe in non-existence of God because you’re making a claim here and you need evidence to prove that claim.” If I may speak for Scottie, please remember that he is saying that he has seen no evidence that God does exist. He is not making a claim of evidence, but saying that he has seen no evidence.
      I remember reading a response of a scientist in either climate issue or in the flat earth silliness – I forget the issue, but remember the manner in which he said what he said and why. He said “I have seen no evidence to support that” and some jumped in with the presumption that since he shared no evidence to deny the claim he was somehow endorsing it. That statement from a scientist is because he is open to evidence and would change his position provided sufficient repeatable relevent evidence.
      I think it is important to define some terms, and it would help if you familiarized yourself with the scientific method. In that, it is important to start with a hypothesis, then test to see if that hypothesis is true, and then it must be repeatable. If someone says “I think” or “I believe” or “that person says…” it is not considered evidence. Evidence is measurable and repeatable.
      Second, you said “I’m an agnostic and i need something substantial to believe in.” I understand what you are saying, I think. But, I think you need to take in what is said and make your own decisions. Truly, not an easy thing to do. It is a lot easier to allow someone else to make your decisions, define your faith and beliefs, direct your actions. As I said above, that can be really dangerous. As you come to an issue, please consider it carefully and make your decisions rationally. Even if you are to say “I believe what I believe because that is what I want to believe”, well, I can respect that provided it is not something that harms you or someone else. That is what makes the world go around, as the saying goes.
      I repeat my applause for a sincere search for what is true and thoughful consideration of your beliefs. I agree with Scottie in that your search would make an interesting book, and encourage you to do so. In my time I have had wonderful conversations with some who were Muslim, Buddhist, atheists and as I mentioned, I studied Christianity. What I now believe would be a bit of a combination of all of those conversations and experiences. If you asked me 20 years ago what I believed and if I could detail it clearly then, and compare it to what I believe now and, again, could manage to clearly detail, it would be quite different by a thousand small ways and some large ones.

      Good journey, Rohit.


      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by randy — December 22, 2018 @ 07:26

      • Well said Randy, very well said. Hugs


        Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 10:15

      • Sir, that is what i’m saying, ‘If you say that i have seen no evidence for God so you don’t believe in God then you are an agnostic and then you reason with atheists and theists equally to decide whether God exists or not. But when you say that you’re an ‘atheist’ you are making a claim for non-existence of God and hence you’ve to prove it. That’s what have told Scottie sir, if you’re saying you are an atheist then give me proof of non-existence of God or maybe he is confused between atheist and agnostic because that is how the two groups work.
        Sir, talking about hypothesis, i’ve given the VRT and intelligent creation theory and they have been given by scientists only. And if you’re talking about ‘God being an energy’ then well i’ve already said that it can be wrong because that is my hypothesis and I’m no scientist. But i do have my premises to derive that conclusion which again, can also be wrong.
        Talking about taking my decisions, yes sir, i take decisions and that’s why i’m an agnostic because i wanna take a right decision so i seek answers from people who claim about believing in a certain decision so that i can also be on the right path.
        And thank you sir for your compliments.


        Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 10:19

  3. And sir if you could read this:

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 02:08

    • I am reading it Rohit. You really have a serious misconception of what the scientific discoveries and atheist are. The big bang name was originally an insult given to the theory of inflation. It stuck and gives lay people a misconception. When scientist discovered more evidence they see if that evidence fits with what is already known and hypothesized. IF it doesn’t fit they check the data, and if the data is correct they change what they first thought. They use the data to update and improve our understanding of reality. There is no need or want to strip religion from the people or the destroy faith. Faith is believing something with no evidence. Science is adding knowledge based on the evidence. Scientist follow the evidence wherever it leads.

      You ask about the purpose of life. Well at a genetic level it is to reproduce and spread your genes. However there is no purpose to living other than what you give it. You don’t need a religious purpose. The purpose of life is to live well, to be productive, to know what is knowable, to enjoy life, to be good to others, to make life as good as you can. There is no evidence of any outside force giving us a purpose to life.

      Science is not a religion as one doesn’t use faith or need it in science. Science is evidence driven. Scientists follow the data and what the data says is what the data says.

      Philosophy is little more than imagination mind games. I don’t think you can ever prove a philosophical point. It is opinion and imagination. As I said it is a mental exercise.

      Rohit, you claim the foundations of civilization is faith. There simply is no evidence for that. The fact is religions came and went many times of many areas, but we know that religion is the means of controlling the behavior of the masses for the benefit of the elite. Today the nations that are the least religious have a much higher satisfaction rate from the people.

      Your whole talk of nations and faith and religion being the same are word salad. Lots of words but they do not convey a coherent meaning.

      You state that no religion flays any other. Are you serious? Look at the first commandment in the Bible’s ten commandments. “You shall have no other gods before me”! Why do think we had the Crusades? Religious wars are still going on today. Muslims attack infidels, one Christian sect will tell you all the ways the other Christian sect is wrong, the Buddhist are killing the Muslims in some countries, all over the world different religious groups are killing others for their faith in the name of their faith.

      Your last sentence is totally wishful thinking with no evidence for it at all. You say you are agnostic or atheist, but Rohit you show clearly you have a religious conclusion and you are trying to fit the facts into it. You clearly start with the conclusion you want and then try to make the data, evidence , fit the conclusion. Your arguments clearly have a religious view and position. Just the assertion of your last sentence show this. You already have a faith, now you are trying to find the god that goes with it. You start with the idea of faith and religion being correct then try to build the case. That is backwards. You should look at the data and build the case it proves.


      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 07:21

      • Scottie,
        this is just great Thinking on your behalf, – and you are right.
        Rohit seems to tend to hinduism – and he tries to prove it, But it remains an unprovable faith. Cause it is man-written/man-made .
        it has been written around the 10th to 11th century AC Some Parts may even be 400 years younger.
        So the writers of this faith had some adventages. They new about the inconsistencies of the older religions.
        The latter writers could definitely know that the earth was a sphere, and the church led by the pope, was soo wrong in believing that the earth was the center of the world. How could the pope definitely know better?

        You are right, in seeing what Rohit is not: He is definitely no Agnostic, cause he told us, that he cannot live without a god. He tries to fill his void with parts of Hinduism, that fit his longings as proof.
        An honest agnostic has no religion – and agnosticism itself is not a religion – and does think, that no god could exist.

        And that makes me an atheist, because the trillions of planets existing at least for 13,5+ billion years are for me proof beyond reason, that all religions – Men wrote down since 6000+ years cannot be – in the slightest – containing any truth.

        If one compared the sheer number of existing planets – it is trillions – what place does an earth have among those trillions of planets? For me that is proof beyond reason that all religions – Men wrote down since 6000+ years – cannot be – in the slightest – containing any truth.

        No, bejond any doubt, those 13,5 billion years of existance have formed universe by sheer evidence – and all the trillion planets in it – beyond any doubt and reason.

        The inconceivable Age and the inconceivable sheer number of planets are proof in itself, that no god can exist, pls. comare it with age and numbers of planet thougt of by those writers of any “religions”

        if you say: “I believe what I believe because that is what I want to believe”, well, I can respect that – just as Randy did – provided it is not something that harms you or someone else – and you don’t try to force it upon others.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by miles — December 22, 2018 @ 09:24

        • there is a mistake in my last comment.
          “it has been written around the 10th to 11th century AC Some Parts may even be 400 years younger.”

          It must read:
          “it has been written around the 10th to 11th century BC Some Parts may even be 400 years younger.”


          Comment by miles — December 22, 2018 @ 13:49

  4. Sir, i think you’ve commited a mistake in understanding the difference between ‘God’, ‘Religion’, ‘Mythology’ , ‘the way the religious scriptures are read’ and ‘the metaphorical answers or explanations’ that are given through scriptures and religious books, we need to understand the purpose of each of them.
    We know that virtues and morality are results of evolution and i agree but still we have to tell the children what is wrong and what is right, we write books on ethics to make them understand this so in earlier times people used to write books on ethics and introduced ‘God’ in it to attract people and make them understand because there was a time when ‘God’ was the only thing in which people believed and when they saw the name of ‘God’ in it they believed, and that is how ‘Religion’ used God to create an order in society and these books are part of Religion and there are many such books which explain different subjects through metaphorical representation and God to make people understand how the society and surrounding works because it is just not possible. I cannot explain all the nuances in a comment section because there are books available and also they are taught in universities under certain courses. So, sir i’m sorry but i think you are confused about God, religion and mythology.
    Now, for scientific explanation of existence if God, sir, I have already mentioned ‘VRT’ and ‘the intelligent being theory’, well they appear somewhat substantial to me as opposed to Natural way or Materialistic world theory or ORT.
    Even the Darwinian evolution has been questioned which was one of the strongest argument of atheists.
    And talking about meditation, sir there are many books and journals which talk about scientific aspect of meditation and how it alters your brainwaves and creates changes in BMR ( but i’m not saying that it proves existence of God it was a premise in my conclusion of God being an energy) so i think i shouldn’t explain that here.
    Yes sir, i accept that i have proposed about God being an energy but there are reasons why i did that, first, VRT points to the existence of a higher consciousness, second, consciousness hasn’t been physically defined by science, third is that there is energy present everywhere even inside us and there is conciousness inside us so, maybe conciousness is present in form of energy and like any other energy it also emmits EM waves maybe which we can detect if we look for it in the right way, this is what I propose and can be wrong but the presence of a ‘higher conciousness’ which feeds the stimulation hasn’t been proved wrong and is only debatable.
    Talking about myself, Yes sir you pronounced my name very correctly and it couldn’t be pronounced better. And to which community i belong, well sir, i don’t belong to any community but my parents are Hindu (like Dawkins said it) and i’m from India. I wanna apologise for my English and other mistakes which i might have committed knowingly or unknowingly. And yes sir, i’ll surely think upon your suggestion of writing a book.
    At last sir, i’m not trying to prove you wrong all i’m doing is ‘seeking answers’, when you make an acknowledged claim that ‘God is a delusion’ then where are your empirical evidences in proving that? For reasoning you are just accusing theists of proposing a theory of Existence of God well that accusing is not a valid reason for ‘non-existence’ of God. This shows that theists and atheists both are in the same boat, ‘the boat of believing without reason’. So why not simply say “I don’t know” which is far better than accusing each other. And whenever the answer comes then believe it.
    And it is not that i’m only questioning you i question both the theists and atheists in the similar way. Had you been a theist i would have questioned you just as i do now.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 04:46

    • Rohit you are basically repeating the argument there can be no morals without god. The idea that god provides the correct and best way to live and the way to tell right from wrong is incorrect.
      To believe that you have to believe there is a god. A god / deity that interacts and provides with reality and the people here on Earth. That alone is silly. A deity in a universe this big is not interested in the lives and actions of minuscule life forms. Think how much more evolved you are than an earthworm. Do you know its wants and needs, can you understand it. What about bees and ants? Do you care how they have sex and with who? Do you demand they live a certain way? No. Now think of how much more evolved the worlds many deities / gods are from humans. We wouldn’t even be on the radar of such a being. Also you have to say that the morals of those holy books are the best morals as they come from a god. That means every barbaric and cruel thing done in those books would be morally correct. As we know this is wrong we know morals did not come from a deity, but from us humans.

      Religion was designed and used to control the behavior of the masses for the benefit of the elite. Our views on right and wrong come from us. They also evolve with us. So we know what once was believed OK like slavery ( which the Koran and Bible both endorse ) we now know to be very wrong. We can show a model for this. Remember it starts with groups. People want to be a member of the group because it is safer and has other benefits such as more food, assistance for child care and other things.
      So as we increased in numbers we became communities. Then we became bigger with regions, then states, then nations, always building bigger. The moral ( view of right and wrong ) also built up and evolved as we increased. There was no need for religions which really have some horrible ideas for how to live in them, and are outdated by the morals of today.

      So, sir i’m sorry but i think you are confused about God, religion and mythology.

      As I said I use the dictionary definitions for each of these. I have posted them in the replies to you before but will do so again.

      a god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion).
      “a deity of ancient Greece”
      synonyms: god, goddess, divine being, supreme being, divinity, immortal; More
      divine status, quality, or nature.
      “a ruler driven by delusions of deity”
      the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).
      noun: Deity; noun: the Deity

      god noun
      \ˈgäd also ˈgȯd \
      Definition of god (Entry 1 of 2)
      1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
      a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
      b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
      2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship
      specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
      Greek gods of love and war

      the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
      “ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
      synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
      a particular system of faith and worship.
      plural noun: religions
      “the world’s great religions”

      a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
      “Ganesa was the god of wisdom and success in Hindu mythology”
      synonyms: myth(s), legend(s), folklore, folk tales, folk stories, lore, tradition
      “no ancient culture is without its mythology”

      Rohit these are the official meanings of these words. I have used them with these definitions. If you use these words to means something else you would have to first provide what you think the word you are using mean so we are able to communicate.

      ‘VRT’ and ‘the intelligent being theory’,

      I discussed this. These are ideas with no evidence to back them. They basically are philosophy. That is not science nor evidence. So again it is based on faith and if you believe them you do so on faith alone. The natural universe , our reality, is all we can use and prove. If you propose a theory of how things are, you need to provide the data for this, the evidence for your claim. If your claim is not in the natural reality you can not provide empirical evidence because science can not be used on the supernatural. I use the word supernatural because the opposite of natural is supernatural.

      The only people who question evolution are the ones who do not understand it or those who need to disprove it for their religion. Evolution is the nearest thing to a scientific fact as can ever be. The theory ( using the scientific meaning of the word ) of evolution has more evidence than any other theory, has more evidence supporting it, has satisfied every prediction required of it. ID ( intelligent design ) fails because there is no evidence of an intelligence and evolution shows clearly one is not needed. Again your start point is from a religious viewpoint , not a scientific one. There is no need to add a deity to anything that can be shown to happen naturally without one.

      Meditation has some benefits I agree, but again you can get the same benefits from listening to music, relaxing while reading a book, looking at the landscape. The benefit is in the relaxing, not the how you do it. If a person likes to meditate , great for them.

      When you use VRT are you referring to

      vir·tu·al re·al·i·ty
      /ˈˌvərCH(əw)əl rēˈalədē/Submit
      the computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or environment that can be interacted with in a seemingly real or physical way by a person using special electronic equipment, such as a helmet with a screen inside or gloves fitted with sensors.

      Or the idea that we are a computer simulation. If you are using the later then there is no evidence to support the idea and no reason for it to point to a higher power.

      the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings.
      “she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later”
      the awareness or perception of something by a person.
      plural noun: consciousnesses
      “her acute consciousness of Mike’s presence”
      the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
      “consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain”

      Please notice the last definition. Consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.
      This means that if the brain dies then there is no longer any consciousness. This disproves the idea of a special energy in and around us being our consciousness. We have never been able to detect any soul or other seperate energy that manifests and leaves the body at death. There is no evidence for it.

      We can see the chemical interactions in the brain. We have technology that we have developed to do this. However that is a natural process. Again it requires no outside intelligent energy or force.

      Again you start with a conclusion and then say no one has proven it wrong. That is not the way it works. You have an idea, you need to show the evidence for it. That evidence needs to be shown to be from that proposed idea. The idea is not to disprove your idea but to prove it. The disproving part comes when you claim evidence that doesn’t show what you claim it does or belongs to another already know hypothesis.

      Thank you for the information about yourself. By community I did mean your country or place. You are part of a community as you live among others.

      I am not worried about being proven wrong because I have only used existing data and applied it to your claims. If I was wrong I would change my position. I also am not interested in forcing you to agree with me and my view. You have the right to believe whatever you do, or wish to, regardless if it is correct or not. I am interested in your idea and how it fits with reality. That is why I am part of this discussion. I don’t feel this is a debate, but I feel it is a conversation.

      You ask where is my evidence that god is a delusion? The reason I can claim this is there is no evidence of god , no manifestation, and every one who claims to hear from “god” is either professionally judged to have a mental illness or god tells them just what they already believe and want. As I said if anyone acted on what is written in the Abrahamic religions holy books they would be in prison. For example think of the woman who wanted to prove god to her kids so she drove her SUV into a metal reinforced light pole. She wanted to prove god would protect her and the kids, but she told them to buckle their seat belts first. Why do that if god was going to protect you, and why drive your car into a pole in the first place. I just posted of a woman who killed her child by drowning her and then setting her on fire. She claimed it was what god wanted. However professionals decided she was mentally ill. Delusional. Look at the people who let their children die of illness that could easily be taken care of because they feel god will heal any sickness or injury. That is delusional. Why it is when god speaks not everyone around can hear it, only one person who then commits actions that are harmful. It is because they have a delusion a God wants them to do something with no evidence of any god.
      So yes I can say that because there is no proof of a deity / God that can and does interfere in the natural world. I can say that believing in something that doesn’t have any evidence for existing is being delusional. That is reasoning based on the evidence or lack of it. The evidence is that there is not any evidence to show a deity / God. So acting on something that doesn’t exist is a delusion.
      If I told people there was a troll under my house, however I give no evidence for a troll being under my house. If others couldn’t find any troll under my house, then if I still believed there was a troll under my house I would be delusional. Until there is some evidence for a god belief in one, especially acting on the idea of one, is a delusion and acting delusional.

      Theist and atheist are not in the same boat nor are they approaching the subject the same way. They are opposites of each other. I don’t mind questions, and I enjoy conversation.

      My last suggestion is you look up AronRa on YouTube. He has series on evolution he produces for schools to teach the subject to kids. If you are interested in philosophy then look up Matt Dillahunty. Both have extensive experience in the subjects you are talking about.
      Be well. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 08:52

      • Sir i never said that there can be no morals without God, i said that morals evolved through evolution but they were maintained in the society and properly implemented in the society through Religion. God was used in it and why it was used, i’ve mentioned that in another comment.


        Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 10:25

      • The example that you’ve given says is the misinterpretation of God and i don’t support that and i have explained that in that other comment on my blog.
        Now also, what you’re saying is based on the premise that God is a mystical being which he is not and i have mentioned that earlier also so please don’t get confused between metaphorical literature of religions and God.
        And also now it appears to me that the knowledge of God and religion that you’ve is from hearing what other people say and you never actually went into it before flaying it.


        Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 10:34

      • Theists and atheists ‘are’ on the same boat, ‘the boat of ardently believing in something without substantial proof’ and they are just on the opposite ends of the boat.


        Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 10:37

        • Rohit. I think we have a definition problem. I have told you I do not believe in any of the gods that have been proposed over the years. That is not the same as saying I know there is no gods. I have even replied to you that evidence could change my disbelief into belief.

          On this scale I would be an agnostic atheist. So no I wouldn’t be in the same boat as the believers as I don’t ardently believe , I have a lack of belief. Hugs

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 10:49

          • Now you’re making up that you’re an agnostic atheist in fact i haven’t heard that term before, either a person is an atheist or an agnostic never came across an agnostic atheist 😂
            Thank you for introducing that and i appreciate it.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 11:01

            • The terms have been around a long time. It all hinges on if you are making a positive claim. If I said there are no gods, I would be required to prove that statement. I have heard atheist reason it out and use logical deductions to “prove” their case, but that is not empirical evidence. However if I say as I do that I do not believe in god, gods, or deities the burden of proof is now on those claiming to know there is a god. Normally it is not needed to include the full description because if an atheist says I don’t believe then you know which side he is on. I am going to go way back start at the top and answer a few more of your comments. We got the comments and replies so long we are covering too many topics and I do not have time to devote to all of them now. I haven’t even started my normal morning work. Be well. Hugs

              Liked by 1 person

              Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 11:11

              • Sorry sir, it was my fault that i didn’t understand that you are an agnostic atheist (well it appears pretty absurd but again i’m not saying that it is wrong) and also you were defending the non-existence of God so ardently it hinted to you being the common atheist who refuses existence and also your blog was such that it appeared to be of a Gnostic atheist.
                And the more common atheist is the Gnostic atheist and not the agnostic one.
                So it appears to me that we are somewhat similar just that i’m seeking answers and you’re not.
                So this ends the debate and please don’t reply to this on the very topic we have already discussed so much.
                If you want to say something else then you can comment it on my blog.
                Thank you for all that you did.

                Liked by 1 person

                Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 11:19

                • Ah Rohit I am beginning to understand the confusion. First I do nto know how many atheist you deal with, most of the ones I know are agnostic atheist. There is one who says he is a gnostic atheist as he sees no reason in the idea of god. That is Aron Ra.

                  You see on my blog where I slam christianity and Islam. I make fun of both religions and I argue they are wrong, their holy scriptures are error filled, and most of the believers have no idea of the history of their faith and how it has changed. You are very correct in that it seems I am saying their believe is wrong. Understand what I am saying, I am saying I do not claim their is no god, I do claim there is enough serious problems with the Bible to make its god claim worthless. Again not saying there are no gods at all. I can not prove that. I can prove the christian bible is full of lies, distortions, make believe, people who never existed, things that never happened and so on. To some extent I can with specific beliefs of Islam. But as I admitted I do not know anything of Hindu , my knowledge of Islam is limited.

                  Rohit. I dislike things that hurt people. I dislike lies, I dislike causing suffering. I dislike organized religions. As I said religion is designed to control the behavior of the masses and move any wealth from the bass masses to the top elite. That if very different than faith. Randy is one of the smartest guys I know, and a wonderful man. He has faith. He believes in a deity. He doesn’t believe in religions. Faith is personal. Faith is like a code of conduct on how to live your life. Faith is personal and people with faith do not push it on others. Most people of faith rarely talk about their faith unless asked. Faith can be a very positive aspect in a person’s life if they believe.

                  So I can support a person having faith. I do not support or agree with the worlds many organized religions. I do not like religions that attack others and use their religion to cause harm to others. So when you look at my blog and see an anti-theist post, it is because the religion of the theist is harmful and causes suffering to others.

                  Hope this clears up the confusion. Hugs


                  Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 13:11

                  • Sir religion doesn’t attack any other religion it is the people who misinterpret things and mislead the masses.
                    And in fact if you’ll read the main scriptures of all the religions then you’ll find that they are all trying to convey the same message. My parents are Hindu, i was born in the place where Buddhism originated, i went to a Christian school and through my entire school life I had Muslim friends. Apart from that i have read their books.
                    Now, to understand what is God and Religion, we need to first understand all the religions.
                    Thank you for all that you’ve said.


                    Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 13:54

                    • Rohit are not the people of the religion the religion? I disagree that all religions are trying to convey the same message. To use Islam for example, those who do not believe Islam are infidels, and those of other religions do not have the rights and privileges of Muslims. Christians sects all claim if you do not worship as they do and have the same doctrines then you are going to hell and be punished by god. When you get down to it that is understandable because religion is not about god. It is about control and money transfer. Every religious leader is charged with bringing as many people into his religion , his flock , as possible. They are charge with growing their numbers. That si so they can increase the funds they take in. That is also why religions are against birth control. Children born to religious parents most often become members of their parents church. Think of this, if all religions had the same message why would each religion claim they are the ones that know the truth and if you don’t follow their truth you are unsaved and will go to hell?

                      I understand you had friends of different religions. If you go ask your friends religious leaders if you are going to heaven or hell , if you follow the correct god, they will tell you no. Not unless you join their church or religion. I am sorry. This is one reason I dislike religion so much. It is used as a club against others until they either submit or are gone. Notice again I said religion, not personal faith.
                      Talk later. Hugs


                      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 14:06

                    • And again sir you have missed all that i had said and are just believing in what you’ve heard from others without getting an insight yourself.
                      So, if you don’t wanna take the pain yourself to refute something then why should I go on writing the same thing back to back and making you understand something which you don’t want to, that’s sheer bigotry.
                      I have already told you that the religions don’t say that everyone else is wrong and only that particular religion is right but to understand that you’ll have to get an insight yourself and study all the religions(or at least the major ones) yourself because i cannot write that all here. Religion is used as a club just because of the fact that people don’t take the pain of understanding it themselves and make conclusions on what others tell them.
                      So i think we should better end this because we are having just ‘word salads’ and nothing else.


                      Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 15:57

                    • You know Rohit I was thinking the same about you. I write, I explain, I use examples and I give actual definitions and you just blow it off saying I have missed what you are saying and don’t want to get insight. At this point I don’t see a reason to continue. I have far more to do in a day than I can get to. I was trying to be nice. Have a great day. Hugs


                      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 16:00

                    • Same here sir, i tried a lot too so i think we are on equal grounds and i have a lot to do too. Have a great day. Hugs

                      Liked by 1 person

                      Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 16:01

      • I’m also not forcing you to not believe in something I’m just asking answers to why you believe in it? Because i also want to believe in something. And sir, you gave me your reasons but i didn’t find them satisfying so i guess i’ll continue with my seeking.
        At last, thank you for taking the pain of replying and providing me more knowledge. I would now say that lease don’t give any other reply with logics but if you want to say something apart from this topic like something which would help me in my life then please write it in the comment section of my blog.
        Thank you very much sir for all that you did. ☺️

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 10:44

        • OK we need to slow down, your comments are getting jumbled in with other stuff and out of order. Let’s take one or two ideas and work on them first before going on to other stuff.

          I will address this comment then I will wait to see if you reply. I will continue my work while waiting. If you reply please keep the response to one or two subjects and lets keep them shorter than we were.

          You ask why I believe in it? What it? I think you mean reality, the natural universe. I prefer natural science.

          Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. Mechanisms such as peer review and repeatability of findings are used to try to ensure the validity of scientific advances.

          Here is another definition that is shorter.

          nat·u·ral sci·ence
          a branch of science that deals with the physical world, e.g., physics, chemistry, geology, and biology.
          the branch of knowledge that deals with the study of the physical world.

          I do not believe in the supernatural because I have not seen any evidence for anything supernatural. There are a lot of spiritual things I think are grand, but again there is no empirical evidence to support them.

          Let me ask you a question. Why do you want so badly to believe in “something”? There are many worthwhile wonderful things to be and do, to find satisfaction in. Matt Dillahunty has a rather well know quote which is: “I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible”.

          As for your seeking, I hope you will keep looking, keep thinking, keep exploring. That is how discoveries are made. It is how scientific advancements come about. There is nothing wrong with seeking knowledge or understanding. It is how we grow. It is how we become more than we were.

          I have to go get some of my work started. I will answer the rest of your comments later. Best wishes. Hugs


          Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 11:32

    • Rohit I would like to clarify something I wrote. I want to make clear I think acting on a religion is delusional. Having faith I don’t feel is a delusion. There is a big difference between a generalized faith in something, and acting per specific holy books that have been proven full of errors and wrong. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 10:12

      • Sir i was talking about Faith in context of religion and i thought that it was understood. Sorry if i made a mistake.


        Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 10:21

  5. And no need to make more videos sir, i think i have kept my point and you’ve kept yours and i don’t think we will reach any amicable point on this age long debate so let’s just leave it and go back to what we were doing.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 04:52

    • I think we are being amicable but I have no problem moving on. Be well, best wishes. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 08:53

      • And I found another Argument for me to be an Atheist.:
        None of them writers of ALL of the Religions did have the knowledge of Mathematics, that scientists do have today: Their knowledge was nearly nothing compared to today. They didnt have any knowledge of really big Numbers like Billions and Trillions. And they of course didn’t have “numbercrushing” machines – computers, being able to crush algebraic equations that men were unable to solve.
        And even Inequalities are a means of todays mathematicians, for instance, to compare dimensions.
        All this could not be known to any “mathematician”, in olden times.
        So it is sheer nonsense to believe in any “god”, who was made up by men, who definitely missed the knowledge of the Universe, that science has today.
        Maybe in the near future Physicist could calculate the chance of the evolution to be the driving force of the Universe – If they dared – against the “unbreakeable” will of all the religions.

        But should science do that? What would you, Scotttie and Randy and all you others – interested –


        Comment by miles — December 22, 2018 @ 11:29

        • Sir, did you know that celestial alignments actually works on our body? And it is has been proved by science. To make you understand I’m gonna explain it in simple way, ‘today we know that high tide and low tide occurs due to the gravitational force of moon. Now think about this 70% of your body is water so won’t that force be applied on your body as well won’t that movement of liquid and water occur in your body as well? And this has been proved by science that because of the gravitational pull of moon certain metabolic changes occur in our body and because of that the major systems of the body are body are affected especially the digestive systems and hence we should eat only certain kinds of food on a full moon day and a new moon day and it is similar with the movement of other celestial bodies. Science has proved this today but it has been there in ‘the Vedas’ for thousands of years. And this is just one instance there are many such instances, a few of which i have already mentioned in my previous comments. In fact almost 60%-70% of the Vedas has been proven to be correct from the prospective of science and this is what amazes even the scientists that how did they know all this when they didn’t have any technology at that time.
          And there are many machines of the past which show perfect mathematical calculations and sone of them are still preserved in archeological sites. Today the whole western society is running behind Yoga and Meditation, there are start-ups in Silicon valley promoting them and earning millions, scientists are busy proving the benefits that we get from them but all of this has been already been mentioned in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy.
          Buddhist philosophy says that the whole world exists only through perceptions in our mind and it is not real and it talks about a higher conciousness which today is what many scientists (maybe not all) are saying through the simulation theory. The question is how did these people know all this hundreds of years ago when there was nothing in the name of technology that we have? And this is a question which the scientists are putting forward.
          So, all i wanna say is that before refuting anything we must have some insight about the thing that we are refuting.


          Comment by Rohit Prakash — December 22, 2018 @ 17:08

          • You are of course wrong. Simply put tides are produced by the moon’s gravity pulling on the earth causing a slight bulge. As the bulge moves across the earth it causes the tides to go in and out. It doesn’t pull on the water itself, nor does it pull on the water in your body. Tides are very long-period waves that move through the oceans in response to the forces exerted by the moon and sun. Tides originate in the oceans and progress toward the coastlines where they appear as the regular rise and fall of the sea surface.

            All effects of the moon on the body are anecdotal. There has been no empirical evidence of any correlation of the moon’s phases and the human body.

            But in fairness, send me the links to these peer reviewed papers and I will review them.

            Please stop try to prove what cannot be proven as it is not correct. If you have evidence in the form of peer reviewed scientific papers of how the science in the Vedas has predated our best known science of today then show it. Otherwise it is simply conjecture and wishful thinking. Every religion has some followers who want to create a link between some nebulous verses and pseudoscience. But when you look at the real facts it just doesn’t add up. Hugs


            Comment by Scottie — December 22, 2018 @ 17:33

          • No facts; just and only claims.
            would you mind anwering two questions?:
            What does a Senior Research Scientist – like you – do?
            What are you up to, spending hours over hours on this blog trying to persuade readers here of claims without facts.

            You won’t mine any data here, except that you are surrounded here by many atheists.
            So dear Rohit, what are you really up to? Do you have any questions, I could answer?
            This claiming without facts is really boring, to read – again and again.
            Have fun. dear man

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by miles — December 23, 2018 @ 08:22

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: