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

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I'm only trying to answer everyone who contributes to the thread, hence my numerous posts.

As far as wanting to be right. Since the only position I proffer is one of lack of knowledge, being right is neither necessary or glamorous.

And btw, in all seriousness, I welcome our disagreement.

That is in fact the only reason for me to write this and any OP. That is to learn from the opinions of my fellow members.




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
We all just gotta Lego the Ego.

What gets me, is that no one is willing to learn the truth FOR THEMSELVES.

Take space for instance. I don't believe it's what we are told, nor that the earth is round. What is it, I DON'T KNOW. Why? I can't see it FOR MYSELF. I can see the Sun in the sky, the moon in the sky, the stars in the sky and all of those things I can verify with my senses, yet I am ridiculed every time I say it, and honestly, I don't care because I know the one saying otherwise is lying. I'm the only one I need to prove anything to in any case.

I'm not saying I haven't been the liar myself, because I flat out have been and been humbled many times right here on ats. I am actually glad to be shown I don't know everything (anything really), and it makes learning so much more fun anyways.

Anyone who says they know something without experiencing it, is a liar and that is the truth. We can all theorize and that is fine, because we need that to form ideas, but to state theory as fact is a lie flat out. I believe to state "facts" as fact without yourself experiencing it, is a lie first to yourself, second to everyone else. The truth is in action, not in speech. The Truth is alive, not dead and so, when living in the light of life...prove all things true to yourself and commune with others doing the same so that truth is shared always.

We are given five senses for a reason, to verify things for ourselves in experience. Wisdom comes by experience true? I have Faith in many things others don't, because I have experienced them and know they are true.

I believe it is totally logical for people to want evidence of claims and that if someone isn't able to supply such, then they shouldn't present such and keep it to themselves. It's good, I believe to have faith, but not blind faith. I can believe creationism as easily as evolution, because either way I don't know other then I am here and how ever that came about, I am thankful for.

Peace



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 

...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?


I do

that's why it's such a good question

and such an obvious question - you have to wonder why it doesn't come up more often

concerning the "really big" questions - which is what this thread is about - you'd think we'd be more interested in discussing the possibilities than posing

I don't know anything - have as much fun with that as you want

I'm interested in all possibilities - admitting I don't know is at the very least honest - and not that painful - you get used to it after a while

I hope this goes on for a while longer - the way it was intended

and, the illusion angle isn't petty :-)

but, it does make people very, very angry



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I honestly cannot disagree with one thing you just said.

The only thing that I would add for consideration, is that there is another universe beyond the five senses. But as you said, it also must be experienced to be "known".



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
concerning the "really big" questions - which is what this thread is about - you'd think we'd be more interested in discussing the possibilities than posing.


Ah, le post juste.

Well said spira.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I really am unsure. There are arguments to go both ways, but there are situations where you have to look in control. There are situations where you are less grasping for knowledge, rather capable of asking for it outright. Of course we don't know, but when our poilticians give a hint of it we mug them. Maybe rules for the elctorate here.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

because ATS would be so much less fun if we actually could agree to disagree - there would be some very short threads


I respectfully disagree.

"I don't know" opens the door for all possibilities and makes for long and informative debates. Where all options are explored and considered.

It actually encourages questions between members rather dogmatic back and forth absolute statements between people who try to force their point of view on others in order to validate themselves.


Very trenchant indeed. This is one of the most intelligent things I've read on this forum. By the way, you kind of just answered this thread's major question.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Is it arrogant to state the current scientific facts?


It's arrogant to make an ultimatum out of the "current scientific facts". You are closing your mind. Not you, nor anyone, actually knows that physical death is the end of conscious existence. It may seem far fetched, but the fact that you place such a great certainty in the opposition of this idea suggests that you are incapable of contributing to a dynamic, evolving discussion. It says a lot about not only you, but your belief that concepts and ideas that seem sufficiently plausible are actually truth. I know what I am saying throws out the entire Scientific Method out the window, but in certain cases you must go beyond that.

The Scientific Method only benefits the science upon which it is established, and not the mind that attempts to interpret the knowledge upon which the science itself is imagined.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cognoscente
 


C, you might as well take over the thread because you're speaking my mind better than I can.



ps. check your u2u, the little light is not working today.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente

The Scientific Method only benefits the science upon which it is established, and not the mind that attempts to interpret the knowledge upon which the science itself is imagined.


very nice

I can't understand why this is such a difficult concept for some



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I have nooooo troubles at all saying "I don't know."
I don't even mind saying "I forked up."
Nobody's perfect.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I think many people DO say that we cant "know" when it comes to many things, including creationism vs evolution.

As some one else pointed out, it simply isnt popular to say you cannot know. You win no "followers" by telling the truth if that truth is uncertainty. I agree with the person who said that it boils down to psychology. Uncertainty is frightening to most. Things that sound certain, and sure, and also that promise you what you WANT to believe, (and what every one seems to want to believe is that they will be fine if they keep doing what they are already doing) trumps the truth of uncertainty virtually every time.

I would argue that you could never reason someone into accepting uncertainty. The lack of acceptance is not caused by faulty or incomplete reason. I see no evidence that most people make any of their decisions based on cool reason. It seems to me that people react according to their emotional response and then use reason to justify their reaction.

It would seem to me that the only way to solve the problem of some not being able to accept uncertainty would be to address the underlying emotional reaction, the fear, that causes them to seek the security of "believing they know."

Edit; grammar.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Atheists know there is no God.

Theists know there is a God.

Agnostics know God both does and does not exist.

All of them are making a knowingly decisive decision about the existence of God. Three sides to the same coin.

I myself, am a 'Deist'. This means I know God exists, but most people that believe in God (in the States) believe I am an Atheist


**Edit to add: yes that was sarcasm on the agnostics


[edit on 1-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Anostics know God both does and does not exist.
**Edit to add: yes that was sarcasm on the agnostics





Mate, thank the god I don't know about for the edit.

You nearly had my blood a'boilin!



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
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.

Not at all. I consider the existence of god with the same logic I consider any statement made about the world, with scientific rationality and logic.

And if there were a scientific theory that had no basis in evidence, I would reject it outright, even if there was no way to disprove it. What reason do I have to believe it?



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SamuraiDrifter
 


Faith by definition is not and should not to be subject to scientific proof. That is precisely why it is called "faith." Any more than science requires faith also by definition. These two subjects could not be less related.

If you require proof for faith the false expectation is with you and not to those who fail to provide it.

The other side of this coin would be a scientist saying "trust me" though I have no data.




[edit on 10/2/2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 

Wonderfully well said, Spiramirabilis. Really, this post of yours says it all. Everything from here on in is just embroidery.

So let me embroider. You spoke of the importance of self-definition and personal empowerment as drivers of controversy. You are quite right, but that is not the whole story.

Many of us hold that truth is absolute, even if it is not humanly knowable in totality, and that to the extent it is knowable, it must and shall prevail over error, be its triumph injurious to some, or even to all.

I cannot, of course, know that 'my' truths are in fact true, but they are very much so to me, and I feel some slight duty to help establish them in place of what I deem to be false. It isn't an overwhelming compulsion or an inescapable obligation, but it's there and it's part of what makes life worth living for a person of conscience.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Faith by definition is not and should not to be subject to scientific proof. That is precisely why it is called "faith." Any more than science requires faith also by definition. These two subjects could not be less related.

I disagree.

The claim "the Universe was created by a supreme being in six days 6,000 years ago" definitely ventures into the realm of science, and is demonstrably false.

[edit on 2-10-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SamuraiDrifter
 


Right, because you have to believe in religious orthodoxy to believe in God
...



posted on Oct, 2 2008 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by cognoscente
 


An Atheist speaks with real life context in mind, and this is very important to note, while a religious advocate tends to disregard that completely. The only context is the foundation upon which their religion is based, i.e. the Bible, Qu'ran.

Not exactly.

First of all, that is simply a position. And one dictated by someone else's belief system to boot...

I think you're missing the point, O Canine of Superposed States.

Atheism may be, as you say, a position dictated by someone else's belief system - if you are speaking of the kind of atheist who is one because he cannot abide religion.

As cognoscente pointed out, there are different varieties of atheist. I believe the kind of which he or she spoke - the kind who 'speaks with a real-life context in mind' - is one who has looked at the world without prejudice and drawn some specific conclusions from it. These conclusions are as follows.

  • All material events, when properly and thoroughly investigated, prove to have material causes.

  • Nature is, by human standards, amoral. It contains much that is good but is also supremely cruel.

These observations prompt the conclusion that either there is no God, or that God is not to be understood in anthropomorphic terms, even those of the greatest refinement, and is therefore a null hypothesis.

A religious person - an indoctrinate - cannot view the world absent the prejudice of his faith. These rather obvious conclusions are therefore beyond him, and he is fated to continue in error and self-deceit until he sheds his dogma.

That is the difference. It is a real one, which folk who bluster that atheism is only another kind of faith (I know you are not one of them) cannot perceive because they cannot understand what it is to be free.





top topics
 
22
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join