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.

 

Not All Atheists Are Rational

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...shouldnt have what?... given you what you asked for - a discussion with an atheist?... okay, well, jeepers - not sure what to say to that except maybe next time you should be more careful about what you ask for...


The very notion shivers me timbers! i dont know what that means, but lets roll with it!

No, i just meant linking a video and all that..



...yw - i LOVE tom russell... usually call him "tom i wish i could lick him all over russell"...


no response. other than that. hmm, it seems we have some circle logic here.. other than that too.



Previously posted by Wyn Hawks
...imo, theres no such thing as both sides - and - "no one understands in its totality" is arrogant...



Originally posted by sinohptik
Sides are created in perspectives, most certainly. A single coin in others.


...thats a good example of me not understanding your syntax cuz i dont know what thats supposed to mean in correlation to your previous statement which i was responding to...

...my point was in reference to the term "both sides", which indicates there are only two sides and there are certainly more than that in every topic i can think of...

...since you brought up coins - not even a coin consists of just two sides... it has two sides and an edge... the edge is just as important as the sides but it rarely gets mentioned, perhaps because its not as heavily decorated - shrug...


thank you for helping me understand where a communication breakdown occurs. that is much appreciated and helps this one learn. so, let me try to clear it up.

the sides are speaking to the polarization seen through many threads here, and otherwise. while they are part of the same system (coin), our perspectives tell us otherwise. The perspectives involved in the polarization are, inherently, subjective, though they present the notion that "this" side or "that" side in a discussion are actually being discussed from only two opposing viewpoints with zero crossover. You elucidate further in saying that it doesnt just have two sides, but an edge. beyond that, my favorite way of retelling the point is a chair analogy. Basically, it is just the idea that when each of us imagines what that "chair" is, we are likely all thinking about different iterations of that. Subtle differences, or even major differences, can and do appear. i feel it is in understanding this, that constructive discourse can take place. even within the two seemingly polarized sides, there are an endless amount of iterations. learning and exploring these iterations leads to great discussions. debating and arguing which iteration is "right" is of little interest.



Originally posted by sinohptik
How is "no one understands in its totality" arrogant? I view it as the exact opposite.


...if you're just talking about yourself and your own limited knowledge of a topic - its not arrogant... if you're talking about other folks, it is arrogant to presume you understand all that they know or dont know - but - thats jmo...


The quote pertains to the idea that a system contained within a larger system can not fully comprehend the totality of the larger system. So, it applies to all of us, including myself. We, as individual systems, have distinct trouble even being aware, or comprehending, the totality of continuous occurrences within our own system (body, mind, etc), much less the planet, or the solar system, and so on. Quantification is possible of certain aspects, but not continuously, and not in their totality. Interestingly (to me), this "math" continues to exist despite our awareness (or lack of).



Originally posted by sinohptik
i suppose i am rather elitist when it comes to what constitutes a discussion, instead of an argument.


...been there, done that myself, many times, lol - especially when my kids were growing up...

...they would get in these moods where they would argue about shades of gray (oooh, makes me think of another fav song)... by the time they were in their teens, i had this little lecture that i frequently threatened to put on a recorder so i could just press a button when needed...


...went like this... you're entitled to perceive as you wish... your sibling's differing views are not infringing on your entitlement... what you perceive as them arguing with you is really just them feeling as entitled to state their opinion as you feel entitled to an unquestioning audience...


Indeed, it was a lesson learned in my teenage years. Though, certainly not due to much effort on this ones part
Those really are interesting years to look back on. in that time and space, i really did think i knew so much. Science, and the universe, made sure to humble me. but i feel it was still a choice.

either way, i love when someone disagrees, as it shows once again, how vast the differences truly can be, even contained within the same system. however, i much rather discuss the concepts instead of the semantics. as in, when i infer God, others would not call it that. i do not necessarily find that relevant, beyond a point of interest. It seems so often that once that word is mentioned, all discussion ceases, and argument begins.

quoting is being funky, and im being lazy.. im sure all will be well




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by miragezero
I'm beginning to think you're a troll.


So be it then. You're entitled to your belief.
You have declared such things as "superintelligence", insisted that atheists rely on chance as a major factor of everything, and asserted that the universe and brains are computers. You'll need more than your declaration to support these contentions.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I can at least try, and i actually do go somewhere with this


Through.. obsessive exploration of the world of mathematics and science, i discovered that constant quantification of the totality of a given experience (my own, in this case) was literally impossible. and yet, it was happening nonetheless. How could such a thing operate beyond my direct observance of it? (my arrogance, surely). I had the hypothesis that perspective as a result of mental contemplation solely was inherently flawed because of this anomaly (what i considered it at the time).

So, i began pursuing other ways to bring such a thing in my direct observation and perspective. Even just simultaneous awareness of my breath and heartbeat as individual (but not separate) parts of my experience. I led many different subjective experience experiments, which had mixed results. i came to the philosophical conclusion of the "have" and "have not" transition. Interesting subject, but it illuminated what i was missing. That every single thing i was trying to "force" into perspective was already there. It didnt need to be "brought in," the perspective itself needed to shift. While i was busying myself trying to "observe," all these things were already happening simultaneously. that was the "a-ha!" moment. this one later learned that this exact process and result had similes within different religious structures ("born again" in christianity, "enlightenment" within buddhism, etc). i was sidetracked from "grooming" my own perspective for betterment of the scientific method, to a crusade of sorts to show how to reach this "divine nonsense" while using science and math. It did happen as such, but the premise completely backfired on me


Instead of trying to come up with quantified representations of what was already happening, i just had to accept it was already happening, and that it was in fact, my own current perspective that needed to shift. this later resulted in not only the thought processes being realized as a singular part of this system, but every thing that was going on in my direct relation, simultaneously. In this same moment, my immediate system (body) was perceived as pure "light" (struggle for a word on this) by all of the singular systems contained within. In this state, that this small insignificant system attained, i realized a small fraction of a fraction (if that) of what i call God. I could not think of what else to call it, though words on such a thing are meaningless, yet a part of "it." I also enjoy the term dumplings. because they are good.
it was something that was always there, in form and fashion that was inconceivable in my perspective just moments earlier, and impossible to comprehend in its totality. and yet, that unknowing perspective was always a part of "it." it was just beyond my perspective (by free will choice, in retrospect). There was no "escape." Nothing "materialized" or anything like that. My perspective simply lined up with what was already there, which truly, was an "earth-shattering" experience. This one realized what was being spoken about by all these "irrational" people. the "light" portion of the experience can be labelled as untestable and unquantifiable. The rest was simply realizing the incomprehensible structure that occurs simultaneously and continuously all around us and within us

Through... over a decade now (so not too long) of further "exploration" there has been much "learned" by this insignificant system. i found that i was an intrinsic part of not only "myself" but the containing system, and all of the math running through the entire universe itself, also made the blood pump through my veins. The day of that experience was the day i dropped the "atheist/agnostic" moniker and claimed nothing and everything to take its stead. Meaning, this perspective is a singular part of the whole and one can see the "truth" in others conceptualizations of the very same thing.

To most atheists, and even most people in general, the story above would be considered nonsense or the result of mental failure, on some level. Thats ok
It is freely available to everyone, i am not special. Interestingly (to me), it took significant time and effort to "see" what was already there
So there ya have it TD and others.

It is what it is, as it all is, beyond our perspectives yet containing them.
edit on 10-2-2011 by sinohptik because: super ninja raspberries!



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by miragezero
I'm beginning to think you're a troll.


So be it then. You're entitled to your belief.
You have declared such things as "superintelligence", insisted that atheists rely on chance as a major factor of everything, and asserted that the universe and brains are computers. You'll need more than your declaration to support these contentions.


Atheists do rely on chance as a major factor of everything; in fact usually this is a primary form of defense against the notion of god. Brains are computers (although maybe yours isn't). If brains are not computers then they could not have performed the necessary functions for even sustaining life or catching prey let alone computation involving the thinking about the origin of the universe etc... I have already provided you with additional links to the concepts I've spoken about. Nevertheless...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.google.com...=superintelligence&hl=en&fp=1

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Apparently, atheists believe that anything outside of the Church is rational. In reality, however, Catholic priests have made quite a few rather mundane contributions to society. If you're ever used a Post-It note, you have the Catholic Church to thank.

The so-called "Civil Rights" movement in America was started by Protestants and Jews, not atheists. The first modern thinkers such as Leonardo Di Vinci, Thomas Jefferson and Baruch Spinoza were actually strongly religious.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
so we have different sects of Atheists now and a "first Church of Atheism" but atheism is not a religion even though it is recognized as a Religion via the Supreme Court...

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion"

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being...

I am just so confused


en.wikipedia.org...
www.cbsnews.com...

no jurisdiction in space though sorry fellas...



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
all in favor of renaming it "soft satanism" say I !

for I believe to be a true atheist one would not even acknowledge that they are one... as stated by the OP themself.

why even profess the belief to others then ?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join