It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There's nothing wrong with believing, so long as you don't put too much weight on a belief that's too open to interpretation. Would I die to defend my beliefs on spirituality? Nope. Would I die to defend my right to choose that belief? Yes.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Gigatronix
ME!!!
gigatronix......well said!!!!
Just to take some of the wind out of your sails.....I'm not sure I'm an Atheist, because that involves being as much of a 'believer' as the 'theists'.....
I prefer rational thinking, personally.
Matrix....what an important concept!!!
Focusing on what I think this thread is steering towards, seems to be religion, and religious 'belief'.
Religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices...something a person believes in and follows devotedly." - Websters.
There is a place for a 'closed mind'....because, that 'mindset' helps in demying every scientific endeavour.
I guess I'm safe then. i have no Pope or Guru, and I don't absolutely know anything, except that I don't absolutely know anything.
I identify myself as Atheist because Atheism is the closest general label I can apply to myself so everybody has an idea where I'm coming from. My theory and philosophy is very spiritual and open-minded, it just doesn't include a God. Doesn't mean I'm opposed to god or the theory of a God, it just mean I don't feel a God fit's into my personal beliefs at this time. My belief system is flexible enough to accept new information and give it a fair shake though.
Just to take some of the wind out of your sails.....I'm not sure I'm an Atheist, because that involves being as much of a 'believer' as the 'theists'.....
I prefer rational thinking, personally.
Assigning labels???
Probably one of the best 'recent' science fiction TV shows to deal with this subject......and there were many.....but, I want to focus on a Star Trek: TNG Epidode titled 'The Measure of a Man"
I don't think that ANY Religion is correct....because, either they ALL are correct, or NONE of them are correct.....in fact, it is the height of arroagance to think that ANYONE can 'know' god....
I've rejected atheism, as much as I've rejected 'theism'!!!!!
There is no 'either/or'...well, there probably is.....but we'll never know for sure, untill we die.
Asty, I very much appreciate your point (although the cartoon didn't come through, entirely).
Originally posted by Astyanax
It seems that not a day passes on ATS without someone posting a new thread berating 'closed-minded sceptics' - you know, those awkward folk who demand reasonable evidence before accepting the latest bizarre report or theory as true.
The boot of gullibility is on the other foot. Your average conspiracy theorist, New Age visionary or Indigo Child will swallow anything as long as it accords with his cherished beliefs. He'd swallow a whale if it swam up to him and professed undying belief in his pet theory. But offer him the tiniest shred of evidence contradicting that theory and watch him explode in fury
A sceptic - to use the terminology so much in favour here on ATS - is obliged to change his views when he is given compelling evidence for doing so. If he doesn't he is obliged to resign the position of sceptic. The thing about sceptics is that they refuse to believe against the evidence.
One must assume that they truly want this type of disaster to happen. That they want to prolong the 'magic' as long as is humanly possible! It seems important to them that this stuff is actually happening.
The people you are describing are often younger, more inexperienced believer-types.
Our resentment of consensus-reality probably derives from cases of broken trust in our childhood, of having placed trust in the word of "authorities", and that trust being shattered by experiences to the contrary.
By that narrow definition I would either be insane, a professional-scam-artist or a "clinger". Thanks.
I am skeptical of mainstream information. Doesnt that make me a Skeptic?
Is it important for a police officer to follow claims of crime even if there is no evidence (yet)?
3. Is this website more of a place for scientific research or for speculation?
Originally posted by Astyanax
Have you ever investigated any of this 'mainstream information' using rational, or scientific, or forensic or whatever-the-heck-you-want-to call-them methods to find out whether it is true or not?
If someone is making a claim of murder, the claim will be investigated