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.
Originally posted by darkbake
Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by K J Gunderson
We SHOULD BE DISCUSSING THE BELIEFS!
Religion is just a philosophy for living life. Everyone has to have a philosophy to believe in bigger than themselves or else they just end up becoming clumps of dirt that react to what is around them. I agree, discussing the beliefs is a good idea. And so is believing in something.
[edit on 11-7-2010 by darkbake]
Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by Amagnon
No offense but that is a lot of reading just to justify agnosticism as being brave. I have started reading it twice but it seems to wind a bit. If you think being agnostic is more brave, then go for it.
[edit on 11-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]
Originally posted by Amagnon
Well, because I have already seized the logical high ground with my previous arguments, I will continue in that vein.
Allow me therefore, having proved my intrinsic 'rightness' (yes, I AM being ironic), to offer a rebuttal to your assertion of cowardice in the first instance - and confusion and lack of 'belief' - (which I will broadly interpret as being lack of conviction) in the second.
However, before launching into said rebuttal, I will first offer you some insights on your observations regarding the color of the sky.
The sky is any color you want it to be - it is any color that you say it is, because you exist in a private reality.
You interact with a collective reality - but at the end of the day, the reality you experience is unique to you. For a nice clear example, I suggest watching the movie "A beautiful mind'.
When we interact with others, we do so through the medium of communication, which references 'agreed upon reality' - or collective reality. The fact that we use it to communicate, does not in any way confer any particular attributes of correctness to it.
Lets reference that wonderful cliche that is always introduced when discussing such topics, namely is the world is flat or spherical? Well, as has been noted it seems that a lot of people thought it might be flat - and such was agreed reality. It didn't make it right, but to make claims to the contrary was to exit agreed reality - and to visit the realms of the fairies.
So while you look at the sky, and say - "It's blue." I look at whatever it is, and say "That's amazing." If someone asks me what color the sky is, I respond by referencing agreed reality and respond "Blue." Inside my head, I know I am being arrogant assuming I even know what 'blue' is, let alone 'sky'.
Therefore, with respect to your charge of cowardice, I offer a counter charge - namely arrogance.
Additionally, it is easy to see that it requires more courage to live in an alien and unfamiliar place than to inhabit a familiar one. This is one of the driving reasons for people to have beliefs - it makes them feel safe, and yields a sense of power over the environment.
Regarding the charge of lack of belief, guilty as charged - but only with respect to physical reality. In terms of conceptual beliefs, I have plenty of them, and many things I am passionate about - arising from my overly developed sense of justice.
In your example of the sky being blue - I don't know, nor does anyone else know, what is 'sky' and what is 'blue' - we know only in the context of being human beings, and that by definition introduces the aspect of limited observational capacity, knowledge and plain fallibility.
The less you believe, the less filters you apply to incoming data - the less bias you introduce to observations. The better equipped you are to understand.
Socrates, not famous for being a village idiot, once famously reflected (paraphrasing); If I know one thing, it is that I know nothing and I barely know that.
Religion is the paradox of believing that bunch of child molesters know more about the unknown than you do.
Originally posted by LeoVirgo
reply to post by tungus
Religion is the paradox of believing that bunch of child molesters know more about the unknown than you do.
I am not religious, but your statement is not valid and is very shallow. We cant generalize groups like that....
Still, my statement about believing that a human like you knows more about the unknown is a paradox and that statement is valid.
Originally posted by mordant1
Atheism is the rationalization of making oneself ones own deity and as such, there really is no atheism. EVERYONE everywhere believes in some form of controlling moral authority, even if it's oneself.
Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by K J Gunderson
You're focusing on words and not function or results that the words when connected together represent, resulting in sloppy thinking.
Smply because one claims to chose or not choose to give a name to ones deity or alleged lack thereof is just intellectual obfusctation.
Words have to be coupled to results. Defining words and concepts as disconnected constructs is pointless and cannot result in productive results.
Tell me, by what methodology do you keep from simply killing anyone that has something you want?
Is it god?
If there is no god, and you can get away with it, why not take what you want?
Animals are the only atheists, they do what serve their needs without reservation.
Originally posted by mordant1
Tell me, by what methodology do you keep from simply killing anyone that has something you want? Is it god? If there is no god, and you can get away with it, why not take what you want? Animals are the only atheists, they do what serve their needs without reservation.
[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]
Then you twist the discussion, where I am claiming agnosticism is brave?