Why is it so difficult to say "I don't know", page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 11:44 AM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
It's a far more rational position than people who believe there definitely is a god, without one scrap of evidence to support their claim.

A rational position to refute is not relevant when discussing faith.
Apples and oranges.
Except when those of faith try to introduce rational concepts such as I.D. to back up their faith. In which case they are having an internal apples and oranges conversation.

And you are not correct in your definition of your own position as an atheist:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[

wiki

[edit on 10/1/2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 11:46 AM by SamuraiDrifter

Exactly, which is why I don't care about people's personal faith, but do go on the offensive when they attempt to rationalize it as science.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 11:50 AM by SamuraiDrifter

I see you're a ninja editor like myself.

I think the "absence of belief in deities" describes my position rather well.

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 01:06 PM by tribaltrip

Phage had it right on.
There will always be a dispute because of the options of disputes, and the fact that the problem is so emense.Now what I was thinking what if man never worried about why we are here or how we got here.Would we have progressed faster, or slower?
but on topic, the reason why no one can just say i dont know, is because i think every human instinctivly knows that there is more,knows there is an answer and knows theres a truth, it's the fact that the truth is so open ended,When someones says Jesus christ is our savour, or There is no god just science, or darwin solved everything, that puts the issue into the back of there head and they dont have to think about it, which really isnt all that bad, cause i know if i really had no idea what was going on in the universe i would always be thinking about it, and it would bother me critically, Personally im a taoist, and i believe in the tao, because of it's naturistic ethics,and i can go on living knowing that there is a force and that this is all created by the "force", But in conclusion NO ONE can say they know, NO ONE, All one can do is speculate on what they hear or conjur up thier own theories and not just conform to a belief cause someone said "they know"

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 01:30 PM by Trustnoone1987

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Wow.....just wow. You have made my day! I am so glad you have started this thread!!! I try my hardest to stay as far as I can from these religious debates they always end up with the same arguments and because like you said, both sides of the same coin. As always, wonderful thread!

S&F for you

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 01:30 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by SamuraiDrifter
I see you're a ninja editor like myself.

I think the "absence of belief in deities" describes my position rather well.

So you are a "nontheist" rather than an "atheist".

Both are close-ended concepts and positions which attempt to objectify the subjective without enough information to do so.

edit: Thanks for the kind words Trustnoone1987

[edit on 10/1/2008 by schrodingers dog]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 01:41 PM by -0mega-

I consider myself agnostic as well, as far as the concept of the ''existence of *insert object here*" goes.

When it comes to claims of divine intervention or something though, I tend to be more ''rational'' than neutral or the side of ''divine stuff''(depending on the situation in which this supposed divine intervention should have happened.)

Though I believe your kind of thread has been posted before, and whilst the message is all nice and fun, it never actually reaches the people who are supposed to understand the message and try to learn something out of it, which becomes evident when people flame the other side in the next few religion / evolution debates.

[edit on 1/10/08 by -0mega-]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 01:48 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by -0mega-
When it comes to claims of divine intervention or something though, I tend to be more ''rational'' than neutral or the side of ''divine stuff''(depending on the situation in which this supposed divine intervention should have happened.)

Rationality is a useful tool as long as we acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.

As far as divine intervention, it leads to silly and unsubstantiated rationalizations such as "everything happens for a reason."

Really?

And what would be the reason for that?

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 02:02 PM by -0mega-

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
As far as divine intervention, it leads to silly and unsubstantiated rationalizations such as "everything happens for a reason."

Really?

And what would be the reason for that?

Well, you would have to define reason first.

For example many people say that they did something for no (particular) reason at all, but then you'll find out that they did it just because they felt like it.

As such, there would be a reason, even though it would be an odd one (Depending on the definition used here, some might not count that as a reason, whilst others would.)

So perhaps these supposed divine beings performing these supposed divine interventions just did it for the lulz?

[edit on 1/10/08 by -0mega-]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 03:02 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by -0mega-
Well, you would have to define reason first.

I don't think so.
I'm not the one that has to say or think such abstractions to make sense of life and its mysteries.
Things might well happen foe a reason, just as likely that they don't.
I nor anyone else really knows.

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 04:29 PM by TruthParadox

reply to post by schrodingers dog

I agree and disagree.
No one knows the truth and no one should claim to. I agree with you there.
However, people should present the reasons why they believe what they believe. If you cut this off then you cut off the 'oxygen' for the mind to think and form creative thoughts. If we didn't talk about our beliefs to others, then our beliefs would die, in a sense. We would become narrow minded with no knowledge of why others chose to believe what they do. Sadly, this is the state that a lot of people are in, and in no way should it be encouraged.

You and others have said that arguing about creationism isn't going to change anyones mind. That's not true, though I will say in most cases it's a delayed reaction. When I was a Christian, I simply ignored all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible because God exists so all logic that tries to debunk him must be flawed. The second I asked "does God really exist?" in my mind, all those inconsistencies came back to my head and I started actually looking at them. I mostly wanted to debunk them as I desperatly wanted to believe in God, but I realized that they were questions that could not be answered. The problem is that people have to come to the conclusion on their own. Our ego usually won't allow others to correct us, but it is much easier for us to correct ourselfs.
So if people know the questions to ask, they may not ask them now, but they may ask them some day in the future and then recieve the answers as I and others have.

Again, I don't know that God doesn't exist, however, I would bet my life that he/she/it doesn't exist in a second. Perhaps it is a bit arrogant, but show me a person who isn't a little arrogant. The important thing is that we keep our egos in check to recieve the truth when it becomes available to us.

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 04:45 PM by TruthParadox

Originally posted by anyone
People want to believe they know because it is a security blanket. They want to be "the ones" who have it right whether they believe or don't because that makes them feel more powerful; that they hold THE knowledge. My beliefs are ever changing because I feel I really could not condescend to know the TRUTH. I just try to seek truths.

Exactly. It reminds me of all the denominations in Christianity. If all of Christianity is correct, then a good portion of the world knows the truth, and that's no fun. So, people come up with denominations that differ in their interpretations of the Bible which somehow makes them the Holy ones who possess "the truth".

I remember that feeling when I was a Christian. The feeling that 99% of people who claim to be Christians are actually evil and we (my family/church) are the only ones who posses the ultimate TRUTH.

It's really not healthy to have such thoughts in your mind. You start looking at people differently. Instead of judging someone by their actions, you end up judging them by which version of God they believe in. If they believe in your version of God then thumbs up, otherwise it's thumbs down along with the rest of the 'heathens'.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
And you are not correct in your definition of your own position as an atheist:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[

wiki

But in no way does it imply that an atheist is against evidence, just that an atheist rejects theism. In other words, I'm an atheist, but I don't claim to know, as you say, nor do I claim 100% that God does not exist. I simply reject theism due to a lack of evidence.

You see, I am open to evidence of God if there is any.
However, theists are not open to evidence against God, such as evolution.

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 05:03 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Religion and atheism discussed ad nauseam without the realization that they both share the same false certainty and in fact are two sides of the same coin.

Fact is: we don't know

Well i was agnostic unti recently and now i'm atheist. I'm sorry but science supports the idea that when your brain dies you're dead. I think people cling to the other side of this arguement out of fear.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
And it's ok to say it.
Not only it's ok, it's necessary. Lest we look foolish and arrogant.

Is it arrogant to state the current scientific facts?

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

And if you are an atheist, why would you ever be anything but indifferent to those with faith. Unless you feel threatened.

Ahh see that's far to simplistic. Faith is currently interferring with science and that holds back humanity, that is why atheists usually care. Stem cell research for one has been held back by the religious.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
It is these kinds of absolutes that pit people against each other.
Neither side is going to convince the other.
No one has added any new information on these topics in centuries.

I don't want to convince anyone, i just want them to stay away from infecting science with theology. As for no one adding new information, well what about genetic research helping further prove evolution? What about the current research in abiogenesis? Basically religion is holding these things back and that's why atheists care.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
A little humility and the ability to say "I don't know" is the only path to new knowledge and the denial of ignorance.

Or you can keep repeating yourselves.

Science says i don't know all the time, and then they go finding new stuff. I have abolutely no problem with what people believe religiously, as long as they leave it out of science.

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 05:12 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

If we went with your line of thinking we’d be saying “I don’t know” about everything.

If one can only know about death after death and can not make certain assumptions based on obvious evidence then what can you make assumptions about?

If an atheist thinks the best evidence supports their claims, they are going to feel like they know. If a religious person thinks the best evidence is something else and supports their claims they are going to feel like they know.

The same goes for almost any other argument. Given the evidence I don’t believe John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, but unless I was back in the 60’s with Oswald eating a sandwich with him while Kennedy was being shot how the hell can I ever really truly know? I can only base my opinion and understanding of what truly happened on what I consider the best evidence.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 05:34 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
If we went with your line of thinking we’d be saying “I don’t know” about everything.

I can only wish for this to happen.
It would be the healthiest premise upon which to start any conversation.
It also happens to be true.

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 05:43 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
If we went with your line of thinking we’d be saying “I don’t know” about everything.

I can only wish for this to happen.
It would be the healthiest premise upon which to start any conversation.
It also happens to be true.

How is that true? I know where babies come from; I know what I ate for dinner. There are plenty of things we do know. If we follow your logic you can not even know what you just stated.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 06:23 PM by schrodingers dog

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Well, if one wanted to be petty, one could make the "everything is an illusion" argument and question everything on that premise.

So yes, it is fair to concede for the sake of sanity that you know what you had for dinner.
Perhaps you can u2u me on the "babies" thing so I can get caught up.

Obviously we as individuals have varying degrees of "knowledge" depending on the subject.

However on the "big" or existential questions, whether addressed through either faith or science, what we know is dwarfed by what we don't. Thus imho, conceding this lack of knowledge, allows one to have a more open mind leading to questioning and learning.

Don't you think?

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 06:28 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

reply to post by schrodingers dog

, allows one to have a more open mind leading to questioning and learning

I think this actually trumps our instinct to discuss and discover. Saying I don’t truly know what happened to JFK makes an entire argument for the truth and real knowledge a mute point, because if I was not present and don't know now how can I ever? Even if all evidence leans one way? I see nothing useless or non open minded about either side of an argument coming to a conclusion based on the best evidence. If your evidence doesn’t trump mine then your argument is trumped, it doesn’t matter that neither knows the exact truth about every little thing involved.

You’ve pretty much created the biggest cop-out argument for anything ever.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

[edit on 1-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 06:36 PM by schrodingers dog

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Well I completely disagree.

Example 1: Your insistence to be right on this point has done nothing but turn me off to any further discussion with you.

I considered what you said the first time you said it. Your absolute assurance has already lead you to repetition.

I however welcome any new information that might add to my limited existing knowledge.

reply posted on 1-10-2008 @ 06:40 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

Well I completely disagree.

Example 1: Your insistence to be right on this point has done nothing but turn me off to any further discussion with you. I considered what you said the first time you said it. Your absolute assurance has already lead you to repetition.

I however welcome any new information that might add to my limited existing knowledge.

I’m insistent to be right? We both are. You disagree, alright fair enough. However we both believe we are right, based on different opinions and logic. Why am I wrong and being pettily persistent to you when I am only trying to state another way of thinking about this issue? Why in a thread where you say no one can really “known” you seem to be the one in every post who is right?

Where have I been repetitive more than you, why has me questioning you turned you off to any discussion with me?

[edit on 1-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^