Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I suspect reality is as follows, and I want liberation from it

page: 22
175
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Just like your hypothesis that they don't.
But are obvious Arguments from Ignorance fallacy. Albeit different ends of the spectrum that is the fallacy.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Ok then, if you're going to play that game.

I believe invisible marmite exists in space, i believe that this marmite has feelings and demands. You can't prove me wrong therefore your disbelief is as justified as my belief.

Also, i can fly but only when no person is looking, you can't prove me wrong on this theory therefore your disbelief is as justified as my belief.

See how stupid and rediculous all these unfalsifiable hypothesis are?

Just as you say, it's your "belief" that what i speak of above is untrue, just as worthy as my belief? Or do you think perhaps i need some evidence? Or are you willing to just belief that marmite exists with feelings and demands?

Jokes, but you can see my point. (hopefully)
edit on 27/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Awake_and_aware.

You seem to have made some rather carved-in-stone choices for where and what you’re exploring in your world, and I offer a qualified “good for you” to you. Unfortunately, and as you’ve probably noticed, your displayed “rigidity” in this regard has now resulted in your demonstrating how to clear out a room (in this instance, the room of Psychology, Philosophy and Metaphysics)…and I’m just dropping in to shake your hand, to say “Thank You” for your contributions to my own experience and to simply wish you and your family all the very best.

You know, although the explorative options you have selected for your “current” experience will undoubtedly lead you to all sorts of interesting subjects and events, I can tell you here and now that I myself (within a perceptibly specific LINEAR time frame) also drew some solace from the supposed order and logic offered by Science. In my own case, however, Science proved somewhat insufficient with respect to what I intuitively identified as being my own needs.

Personally, I have found Science to be a far too rigid belief system…but hey, that’s just me. The premise that this world must adhere to the discoveries/contrivances and “inevitable LAWS” of physics never really sat particularly well with me; that All That Is is limited in possibility, probability and scope to specific pronouncements made by the intellect of the Scientific community is, in all candor, as distasteful to me as ANY of the dogmatic religious belief systems we all know about and embrace with the greatest of fondness. Matter-of-factly, I find ALL these dogma-tinged belief systems (most certainly including Science) to be absolutely arrogant and assumptive in their respective proclamations of …- their version of… the “truth”. And an "open mind" is encouraged by both religious AND scientific belief systems - as long as this open mind adheres to the parameters set up by the accepted beliefs themselves. Outside those boundaries lie the regions of "heresy" and "blasphemy".

You said:

“I believe invisible marmite exists in space, i believe that this marmite has feelings and demands. You can't prove me wrong therefore your disbelief is as justified as my belief.”

and

“See how stupid and rediculous all these unfalsifiable hypothesis are?”

In answer to your query, and on some levels of awareness, Yes, I Do…but I ALSO see how imaginative and creative these “stupid and ridiculous” things can be as well and, perhaps, within the dynamic of endless and rigid categorization by Science – some if not MOST of the true “magic” of existence is lost; the "magic" of imaginative creativity, the “magic” of Individual Consciousness which makes the majestic creation of Science possible. And for me, this premise includes your own richly imaginative concept of "marmite".

Thanks again Awake_and_Aware.

All My Best Wishes To You, Your Family And To All Those Whom You Hold Dear.

Mindpeace
edit on 29-12-2010 by Mindpeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mindpeace
 


You are mistaken to state i have a "carved-in-stone", narrow-minded, pessimistic view of the world. I pledge to you - this is not the case; so let me make this clear;-

I am open-minded but skeptical. I'm agnostic,which is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

I am willing to entertain or pursue any theory providing their is reliable means to test and verify the conclusive claims it makes.

Science yields knowledge, and knowledge leads to truth (the truth that we are in a solar "system", or that Earth is an oblate spheroid) This is what i care about. Other than that, i act with kindness, empathy and cooperation with my fellow human beings.

Here's my stance; I don't believe the truth behind supernatural "professions" (Fortune Tellers, Mediums, Tarot Card Readers, Spirit Guides, Ouija Boards) they hide behind their own unfalsifiable hypothesis, and no controlled tests have ever conclusively confirmed that people actually have these "powers" - The majority are unwilling to participate and show their "powers" - and it's very clear that the people behind these "professions" are charlatans and frauds.

It's called cold reading, it's a verbal conjuring trick, like magic - an attempt to bedazzle you with "supernatural" ability or knowledge. It's just a TRICK.

Wherever there is a unfalsifiable hypothesis, someone takes advantage and is willing to make a bizarre claim, but what is important is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, as in any scientific thesis.

Most are unwilling to demonstrate under controlled conditions. (WHY?
) Shouldn't we suspicious if they are unwilling to put their claims to the test?

I don't think such beliefs should be treated with respect, we should demand proper reasoning for asserting a belief ; not because of an old book, some pressure from a family member and the fear of eternal damnation.

Again, i am open minded to any theory, but please respect that i will be skeptical if there is no evidence.

I have never said "THERE IS NO GOD" - Because of the unfalsifiable nature of the claim, of course i cannot. But we have no Knowledge of the creation of the universe, yet there are those with the claim to "GOD".

No-one should be expected to prove a negative.
"Magical invisible crisp packets exist" "Don't believe? prove me WRONG"

When someone asserts a belief, they should have good reasoning for it. Or expect people to consider it irrational.

Here's a song you may enjoy;


If anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Psychic who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they are able to read minds

And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Astrologer who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that they can predict future events by interpreting celestial signs

And if anyone can show me one example in the history of the world of a single
Homeopathic Practitioner who has been able to prove under reasonable experimental conditions that solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water has a consistently higher medicinal value than a similarly administered placebo

And if anyone can show me one example in the entire history of the world of a single
Spiritual or religious person who has been able to show either empirically or logically the existence of a higher power with any consciousness or interest in the human race or ability to punish or reward humans for there moral choices or that there is any reason - other than fear - to believe in any version of an afterlife

I’ll give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife


Sorry if that's alot to digest; in short; i'm not narrow-minded, i'm not a bigot and i care about the truth to any claim or ideology.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Awake_and_Aware.

You said:

“You are mistaken to state i have a "carved-in-stone", narrow-minded, pessimistic view of the world. I pledge to you - this is not the case; so let me make this clear;-

I am open-minded but skeptical. I'm agnostic,which is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

I am willing to entertain or pursue any theory providing their is reliable means to test and verify the conclusive claims it makes…” *

* My unfortunate use of the term "carved-in-stone' was in reference to the choices you have made which [obviously] have resulted in the "...proof before truth..." stance that you have adopted, and this premise is, to me, reflective of the belief system of Science that I believe you subscribe to. I also feel my use of the word "rigid" is quite appropriately applied in the manner I chose. There was NO inference that you, personally, are "narrow-minded or pessimistic"; although due to the [again] "unfortunate" wording, it is understandable that you interpreted my sentiment in your stated manner.

My apologies.

Now, insofar as this (MY) world is concerned, I do not view any one belief system as being either lesser or superior than any other. In other words, to me ALL the major religions of this world, or science, or agnosticism, or atheism or any other system of belief are ALL EQUIVALENT IN BOTH SIGNIFICANCE AND VALUE.

For me, the significance and value associated with ANY belief system is actually...assigned...by those who choose to subscribe TO those beliefs - this designation of "significance and value" being determined by the desires and needs of given Individuals. For example, if an Individual wishes to explore "religious practice and application as it relates to their experience", then they most probably wouldn't choose the "...proof before truth..." premise of science to play the role of primary crux for their religion belief system structure. That, of course, is what "faith" is all about...

Put another way, I try to view reality and overall existence in what I consider as being a more "collective" manner which, to the very best of my ability, includes ALL the above systems of belief...and something more...for I view these things to be parts of an unspecified Whole.

I view these belief systems to be "contrivances"; each serving their own respective and appropriate purposes for those who subscribe to them. And my use of the term "contrivances" in this context is not derogatory, but actually quite complimentary - for I am referring to the imaginative creativity of the Individuals who choose to perpetuate the belief systems. There is no "lesser or superior" in my world...only "preferred" by the Individual.

At any rate, I will close these thoughts with the statement that I harbor absolutely nothing but admiration for you. The manner with which you seem to approach your world is, to me, reflective of your being dedicated to the previously-cited "logic and order" that is Science. Again, to me, this observation of "appropriateness" I see when I read your thoughts indicates your personal preference for exploration of your world; nothing more, nothing less.

All My Very Best Wishes, and Thanks Again.

Mindpeace



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindpeace
 

Firstly, i appreciate your apology; i didn't take offense and perhaps it was me that misunderstood the semantics.


My unfortunate use of the term "carved-in-stone' was in reference to the choices you have made which [obviously] have resulted in the "...proof before truth..." stance that you have adopted, and this premise is, to me, reflective of the belief system of Science that I believe you subscribe to.


Science isn't a belief system, it's not something you "subscribe" to either, it's a tool that is used to probe reality to gain data, facts, truth. Science that is used to find and construct materials; telescopes even, that enable to gain further insight into the universe. It doesn't have any dogma attached, no requirement to keep any day holy.

I value the reliability of testing and probing, finding evidence, finding proof, using that knowledge to progress.

It has provided us with amazing truth, and i can put my trust in it, besides what other means do we have in order to gather data, facts, information that is useful about the truth of reality?

It's not that i am untrustworthy, just i value evidence. If someone said to me "i scored a goal in training" I would not need "proof before truth" to put faith in that persons argument. I'm not so untrustworthy.

But in regards to metaphysical claims (GOD, Ghosts, Demons, Fairies, Goblins) i require evidence before asserting a belief.

If someone makes an extraordinary claim to truth, the burden of proof is on them. You can't expect someone to prove a negative. This is an argument from ignorance;


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).


This is my position;-

I am agnostic, and therefore anti-theist. No one can makes claims to truth regarding the unknowable, faith is no exuse.


Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.


Because i value evidence, if someone makes a claim, an extraordinary claim such as the existence of a higher power being, a multicoloured unicorn, demons, leprechauns, i expect there to be PROOF. Otherwise, why should i have to prove them wrong, they should prove themselves right!

You won't find me believing in Astrology, Mediums, Fortune Tellers, Tarot Card readers, Psychics, and no scientific test has ever demonstrated or confirmed these supernatural "powers". Most refuse to be tested, ironically enough. It's supernatural pseudo-nonsense.

I'm not so carved in stone, i'm willing to entertain possibilities like infinity or even intelligent design but i'm unwilling to submit to any theory without proper evidence, and thus proper reason. The reason to believe will always overule the want to believe. But i'm willing to investigate and look at probabilities/possibilities. I don't think this is an arrogant stance.
edit on 29/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Science isn't a belief system


The fact that science is based on observation does not change that fact that it is a system of belief.

It relies on the concept that reality is patterned and predictable.

It relies on the concept that an objective reality exists outside of consciousness.

The only thing you directly observe is your own consciousness.

You can not "scientifically" prove that another entity has consciousness.

So even your objective concept of science is surrounded by your own logical reasoning or beliefs (subjective).



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Awake_and_Aware.

You began your thoughts with:

“Science isn't a belief system, it's not something you "subscribe" to either, it's a tool that is used to probe reality to gain data, facts, truth.”

Please know that I FULLY understand your demonstrated stance with respect to what Science IS and, perhaps just as importantly, what Science is NOT. For me Awake_and_Aware, it’s this very rigid premise of “…what Science IS…” as opposed to “…what Science is NOT…” that actually sets those explorative parameters I mentioned previously.

Have you ever read “Flatland – A Romance of Many Dimensions”? It’s a marvelous novella written by Edwin Abbott in the, I believe, late 1880’s or so. In short, although the tale revolves around interactions between Individuals (A Square (the narrator), line segments and other two-dimensional geometric shapes) populating a two-dimensional world, the underlying idea that truly enamored me to the whole of the work was the concept of “hierarchical interpenetration”, and what would be some of the [possible] visualizations of a three-dimensional object – in the instance of “Flatland”, a sphere - intruding into its two-dimensional “reality”.

Starting as a mere dot, this spot grows into an ever-expanding black circle until the sphere reaches its “equator” – at which time the circular blackness begins to shrink into its original dot state as the sphere exits the two-dimensional perspective of Flatland’s inhabitants. Because “Flatland” is THE reality of its inhabitants, the populace simply cannot grasp the concept of three-dimensional existence. Flatlanders, because of their accepted tenets (for me – their accepted “beliefs”), could not encounter the three-dimensional sphere as anything other than a two-dimensional circle and, thusly, the sphere was perceived in the only manner “allowed” by their self-imposed explorative boundaries. The parameters, in all actuality, DEFINE the TRUTH of that belief system; and the reality which “contains” those systems of belief isn’t limited TO those beliefs. Put simply, the sphere was “less” than a three-dimensional form from the perspective of two-dimensional beings whose beliefs painted something quite “appropriate” for their worldview…but the sphere itself wasn’t diminished in the least.

Awake_and_Aware, the sentiments I have offered above are intended to demonstrate that perhaps ANY belief system which is conceived within preset explorative parameters may be only a reflection from its own looking glass…a reflection of itself.

Thanks again and all my very best to you.

Mindpeace



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware



Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).


This is my position;-

I am agnostic, and therefore anti-theist. No one can makes claims to truth regarding the unknowable, faith is no exuse.


Page 22 and you are still seeking.

Did you read The Knee of LIstening

Do you understand that you are not perceiving Reality but Avoiding Relationship to It?
This is a matter of Radical Understanding,not belief. It is to simply observe yourself.

Guru Gita chantd by Michael Dinga



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Incorrect, science is not a set of predefined beliefs, it aims to probe reality for the sole purpose of finding truth, which can be used for practical purposes.

I might say i belief in "big bang" theory based on the evidence and data i am using. But i would be stubborn and arrogant if i refused to change my belief if evidence emerged proving otherwise.

Again, i am open to any theory/claim as long as it is rational and that there is evidence to back up. Again, i'm willing to allow possibilities (unicorns, fairies, God) but i won't "believe" until you provide evidence.
edit on 30/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Mindpeace
 



Have you ever read “Flatland – A Romance of Many Dimensions”? It’s a marvelous novella written by Edwin Abbott in the, I believe, late 1880’s or so. In short, although the tale revolves around interactions between Individuals (A Square (the narrator), line segments and other two-dimensional geometric shapes) populating a two-dimensional world, the underlying idea that truly enamored me to the whole of the work was the concept of “hierarchical interpenetration”, and what would be some of the [possible] visualizations of a three-dimensional object – in the instance of “Flatland”, a sphere - intruding into its two-dimensional “reality”.


This sounds very interesting to me, And again, i admit, there are some concepts that science has not yet discovered, or has not made up it's mind regarding.

Again, i can't claim there is no 4th dimension just because science can't demonstrate it's existence, or just because i'm not "aware of it". Infact, using mathematics, i could postulate that it is entirely possible, and most PROBABLY exists on a higher level of being. Similarly, i can't claim there is a multiverse, but i can theorise and try to rationalise the idea, potentially using mathematics - Much like geometry and dimensions but there is

I am familiar with the concept that things are not as they seem, quantam mechanics show us that things work very differently to how we percieve them with our senses.

There is no reason to believe that a higher power exists without proper rationalisation. No mathematician, theologian, philospher or scientist has ever confirmed the existence of a deity. The universe works perfectly without that pressumption.

Again, i am not using the argument from ignorance, i don't say there is DEFINETELY no God, i say there is no reason to make this positive assertion. If i told you there was a teapot on venus, i wouldn't expect you to believe me, i'd expect you to want me to prove myself right.

Again, i am agnostic so i can't make any claims, no God or God. Anyone who does is guessing or deceiving.
edit on 30/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


"2. There is an afterlife with several levels. Your first level allows you to still see this plane, such as in NDEs. Eventually you “see the light” and go to the next level where you meet people who have passed on prior. This realm is described as very beautiful."

So all bad people go to this beautiful realm? Cool.

"3. Much of what you experience after death depends on what you believe. If you believe in Jesus, you’ll see him. If you believe in 72 virgins, you’ll see them. You will tend to believe your views are vindicated. Rationalists will have a bit of a problem, but they’ll get over it."

So you bascally can murder, rape and do other bad deeds and if you want to see 72 virgins you will see them? Even more cool.

Basically i agree with you. Just tend to believe that we are here by our own choice. And what we do to others here we are actually doing it to ourselves. i believe this universe we are in is balanced. To maintain the balance everyone gets what he gives. So bad people get what they give in some form or another. Otherwise it would be illogical. Pure nonsense and i would have no desire to live in a world like this.

But I am dead tired too of all this "reality". I don't find much joy in whatever I do because it is just too boring and dull. From the moment I remember myself I feel a strange feeling that I already did such "lives" a thousand times and I am bored to death. I want much more. And I want to free myself from this prison I don't want to be in nomore.
Count me in.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Pitons
 


Thoughts, feelings, emotions exist due to having a biological physical body, take away the human brain (which houses the construct of the mind) and they will experience very little.

Being dead is the same as not yet being born, there is nothing to percieve, you don't have any organs or instruments in order to percieve.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


So you say there's basically no point in living because you will be dead sooner or later and that is all to it?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Pitons
 


Show me where i said this or even i implied this.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Maybe I wrongly interpretated your words.

I needed to ask first:

"Being dead is the same as not yet being born"

What do you mean by this?



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Jezus
 


Incorrect, science is not a set of predefined beliefs, it aims to probe reality for the sole purpose of finding truth, which can be used for practical purposes.


None of this changes the fact that it is a system of belief.

You believe that the Universe is consistent.

You believe that an objective reality exist outside of your subjective experience.

Your conviction is exactly what a belief is, you didn't choose these parameters you actually believe they are aspects of reality.



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Pitons
 


"Not alive"

Peace



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Find some balance...

Don't believe everything you read, even more - suspend judgment and belief until sufficiently proved...

AND - live life as you know it... what you don't know, you can't work with...

You will get out of it eventually, if we reincarnate in one way or another - I have no idea, but I'll wait to see when I die - if there is eternal darkness - cool, if there is bright life and another go at life on Earth - well, what can I really do about it? Scream at the VOID? I do that, too, occasionally, but it is meaningless.

I would say - play more, be daring and enjoy more. We take everything too seriously and become slaves to beliefs, then slaves to conditions of the surroundings; society, economy / jobs, politics, etc.




Originally posted by schuyler
After reading countless books and listening to hundreds of people over the last forty years, From Suzy Smith’s “You Cannot Die” through the Seth Books and Ian Stevenson’s work on reincarnation. I’ve read countless accounts of NDEs, from accounts in books like Moody’s “Life after Life” to individual accounts as posts on forums. And, of course, we have the stories from religions both huge and small, from all over the world. The accounts are both anecdotal and dogma, but they all point to a few basic postulates. I won’t call them “facts” because there is doubt about the exact specifics.

1. You survive “death” in some way. Your ego remains intact, at least at first and in part. Your physical appearance is pretty much like it is now, though of a finer material and vibration.

2. There is an afterlife with several levels. Your first level allows you to still see this plane, such as in NDEs. Eventually you “see the light” and go to the next level where you meet people who have passed on prior. This realm is described as very beautiful.

3. Much of what you experience after death depends on what you believe. If you believe in Jesus, you’ll see him. If you believe in 72 virgins, you’ll see them. You will tend to believe your views are vindicated. Rationalists will have a bit of a problem, but they’ll get over it.

4. Reincarnation is a basic truth. Your ego is part of a greater soul that experiences life through many different lives. At some level you forget your ‘previous’ lives so they do not interfere with your current ones.

5. It appears that “time” is an intellectual concept that is a convenience, but doesn’t really exist. In other words, your next life could be in 900 BC; time is not lineal.

I know there are people here and elsewhere who believe they’ve got the specifics of these general statements down way closer than this. I appreciate your certainty, but I don’t buy it because you contradict each other. For every person who claims Jesus meets them on the other side there is someone who claims she is a reincarnated alien. I have seen posts where it is claimed we must live 144 separate lives to qualify for ‘advancement’ and threads claiming we have to live ALL lives on earth before we collectively move on. I don’t see any good way to verify any of these specific claims and don’t want to waste time examining them, therefore I’ll stick to the more general issues above.

One of my reluctant conclusions is that it appears we may not have much individual control over what happens. What we have come to know as our own selves, our egos, may have a somewhat small part in this game, a temporary convenience of the oversoul so that he can experience whatever it is he is attempting to learn. We may be semi-sentient avatars for a Second Life game we don’t know we are playing.

Although the lives of most people typing at keyboards these days must be somewhat okay, for most of our existence and for the vast majority of people today life is as Hobbes described it: “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” It always has been. Nature doesn’t exhibit much “love,” that thing we’re all told we must spire to. Nature is “red in tooth and claw” and basically lives off death. The number of people killed by other humans, the number of people living in abject poverty, the number of people who starve to death, the number of people who live without hope is appalling.

I’m left wondering, what is the point here? Surely you are not telling me that these kinds of lives are secretly teaching their oversouls some esoteric, but very important message about the meaning of life. It’s pretty apparent that majority opinion is that we, Homo sapiens, are “bad.” Whether this is objectified in thoughts that “we are destroying the planet” or “We all live in sin,” the message is pretty much the same. This seems to be coming from ourselves rather than from somewhere on high. We are not a race that loved ourselves. We prefer to blame ourselves, or at least everyone else but ourselves.

So what I think we have is a life-reincarnation cycle that involved this veil of forgetfulness that leaves us in a state of ignorance when we are here and perhaps we are not. I don’t know who or what set up this system. If you say it’s “God,” OK. Call it what you want. If this is sentient, I’m calling It (or Them) out.

Why are you doing this to us? This whole thing is painful. It hurts. It’s not all that fun. I’m happy to be able to smell the roses and the oranges, taste good food, feel the wind on my face, get laid, and all the physical pleasures. But it’s not enough for what You inflict upon us. Don’t you dare tell me this is all self-inflicted. It’s not. You did this to us and I don’t want to do it any more. You’re locking a paper bag on our heads, making us forget everything we’ve ever endured, then sending us down here to “do good.” Nonsense. How can You justify this torture?

Whoever started this, You no longer have my support. We’re not the problem; You are. I want out of this pattern. I want You to let my people go. I want You to free us from the shackles of this cycle. If there is not already a movement with similar ideals and goals, it starts here. If there is, point me where to sign up. I am going to devote every ounce of strength I have, at whatever level, to break out of this hell You have created for us.
edit on 30-12-2010 by MrVortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



None of this changes the fact that it is a system of belief.

You believe that the Universe is consistent.

You believe that an objective reality exist outside of your subjective experience.

Your conviction is exactly what a belief is, you didn't choose these parameters you actually believe they are aspects of reality.



YES, you could call it a "belief" - I believe that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, i believe that animals/life evolves... why? Because it's based on evidence, objective empirical proof. It's more definitive than the idea of God.

If you make a spooky supernatural metaphysical claim, the only reason to believe is on faith. Why would you do that? It's unscientific, you MAY be correct but it's irrational and presumptious, like claiming there is a teapot on the moon.

"There is a spooky being, he loves you, you'll go to a special splace, believe believe believe"

Although, i admit science doesn't know EVERYTHING, religion knows very little, and because of this, it makes up supernatural stories with no means to falsify or demonstrate with evidence.

I'm not stopping people believing if they want to, but i certainly will challenge an irrational belief, i will stand up and say "why!?" Just the same as any good scholar would in philosophy or medicine.

Besides, i think it is less courageous to believe because you WANT to believe. I believe if there is reason to believe, not on faith, not on threats of hellfire either.

Yes i believe, i believe in evidence. What's the problem with that? If i experienced something that is "supernatural" or i experienced "GOD" - why should i expect anyone to believe what i say? Even if i am convinced myself? I could be deluded, or have made a mistake, drunk, intoxicated.

Similarly, if someone says they saw an "Alien Spaceship", could we really trust their story? How do they know it was an alien? could have be unmanned or human-controlled.... The description of the experience is only as good as the knowledge that person holds and how he/she rationalises and describes that experience.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief. Theism/God folks made the belief on no evidence, we say: we do not believe.

Glad we could clear that up. I've explained my position time and time again, i encourage you to absorb all the points i make here, and apologies again, my belief in evidence is still a "belief"...........i believe my mother exists, and that rain happens, and that 1+1 = 2, i believe these things. It's not faith, it's based on evidence.

read my words above and you will understand why (CURRENTLY) i cannot assert a belief in the afterlife.

Although, i do believe science is young, Information-theoretic death seams currently rather rational.
edit on 30/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
175
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join