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.

 

Believers: Why is Atheism Irrational?

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by A Question
 


Does love need to be understood? Can love be understood?
We do not need to learn to love.
We just need to stop fighting.
We do not need to teach love.
Love is what we are.
This will be realized when we stop looking for reasons and explanations.

When it is realized that there is only one 'thing', there will be nothing left to know.
You will see that you are all of it.




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


As usual my guarded "this is my personal interpretation etc.....":

Cosmos is the superimposed perspective on an underlying 'reality'. Perspectives carry their own answers in them from the start, making things 'relative' in the outmost epistemology.

In the present 'cosmos' scenario this has sometimes been described as 'observer-created', but I prefer 'inter-action' as a better word, as the most regressed point is that of the emerging polarities from (sofar) 'nowhere'. Things bump into each other/relate, because they from the 'observable start' are differently charged and with different intensity of the charges. In another way, .....cosmos is the dynamic interplay of asymmetric polarities.

Quote: ["Wouldn't evolution be the micro-cosmos of material formation?"]

There appear to be some sets of overall rules apart from the intrinsic qualities on micro-cosmic level. It's not just any old asymmetry, it's carefully proportioned, otherwise cosmos could collapse immediately. It may be claimed, that this asymmetrical proportioning is random. But that would be another agnostic argument from all directions.

Quote: ["Perhaps the meaning of life really is 42 . Some profound mathematical key!"]

3 would be a better guess.

Quote: ["I was thinking somewhere along the lines of Pi; The circle; The closed loop where finity has become a product of infinity, much like the "mandelbrot set". Sacred geometry really seems to ring true to me, i get a buzz from looking at it and looking at the mathematical beauty in them."]

We can SOMETIMES go out into the irrational, even the imaginary, and come home again with completely rational reasoning.

Quote: ["Richard Dawkins has suggested a metaphysical theory whereby other universes on a larger scale compete, where it's survival of the fittest universe, some dying out and not expanding, some having unmaintainable laws of physics, all this happening on a scale beyond our imagination. On a scale very much larger than evolution."]

Depends on the intrinsic qualities and emergence patterns on micro-cosmic level and on the existence of macro-cosmic principles. As I've mentioned before 'cosmic historical memory'. Do quantum foam pop into existence in a random way, or does it adapt to the frame of the cosmos it pops into?

Quote: ["There does seem to be this equillibrium to our "cosmos" whereby you may say it's random or chaotic, but it's not, it's very much a self sorting system of chaos?"]

There's a certain amount of equilibrium in the asymmetry, but it's not eternal. Eventually it will break down, and any efforts of theist 'intelligent design' have to consider that (alas, when it happens it's: "But it's 'god's magic").

Quote: ["Is this what you're getting at? That black holes may lead to other realms or universes?"]

Not especially. Black holes could more reasonably lead to a 'pre-asymmetry' scenario (beyond event-horizon, trans-cosmic) and have some theistic implications. An alleged 'god's alleged creation appear to implode on its own. More theist mumbo-jumbo on this point: "But 'god' WANTS it to implode". Dearie me.

Quote: ["Could you say "trans-cosmos" is a metaphysical word? An unfalsifiable concept?"]

The faster-than-light communication IS presently trans-cosmic. Speculations on it are agnostic.

Quote: ["If i have understood correctly, i still don't see the need for the word "transcosmic"]

It's convenient for me, because 'chaos' is too indicative. But I'm open for alternative suggestions. E.g. 'non-cosmos'.

Quote: ["Can't we call the unknown just the cosmos,"]

Cosmos implies 'order'. We don't know of the order (if any) in an 'extended' cosmos.

Quote: ["It's not metaphysical when you have the means to test and observe."]

Even today a few scientists would dispute some of the procedure in contemporary science, and start from reductionist materialism and strict empiricism.

Quote: ["Metaphysical theories can't be demonstrated, only conjured from abstraction, or predicted based on gathering information from our universe."]

If mankind find's it worth it, systematic methodologies must be created to approach this.

Quote: ["As you can see neither i'm neither excellent at Philosophy of Science nor Science itself,"]

I'm a lay-person myself.

Quote: ["How interesting it would be to see a similar species, who've had billions of years of technological endevour and discovery, what dead ends might they come across?"]

Maybe we see them, without being able to recognize, what they really are, but instead call them 'gods' etc.

edit on 4-6-2011 by bogomil because: typos, paragraphing



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
All that science logic and reason can do is explain things so we known, so we can understand. But what are we really understanding? What is it that we now know through this understanding?
What i have come to know after coming here to Ats is that everyone seems to KNOW!!
All these individuals that 'know' have something in common. They know how to fight and conflict. The fact that there is so much conflict must mean that what is worth 'knowing' is worth fighting for.
Each conflict, each fighter is struggling for survival. Each individual is suffering the fear of annihilation. The individual believes, without question, that the solid lump of beliefs that they 'have' is them. They have attached themselves to ideas, concepts and theories and will do as the human machine is programmed to do, fight to the death over other peoples ideologies.

This is the only knowledge worth having.
Be willing to not know.
Be honest and admit that no one KNOWS.
There is the mystery.
There is compassion and there is love.
That is all.

Namaste.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


I see a completely different situation, with a steady growth of knowledge and understanding as a counterpoint to s stagnant theism, fighting within itself.

And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there.
edit on 4-6-2011 by bogomil because: grammar



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You have written this:
"And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there." End quote.

I do not understand what you are saying when you say 'propagandist counter- maneuver to challenge of your fixed doctrines'.
So i would not like to even attempt a reply. Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


You have written this:
"And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there." End quote.

I do not understand what you are saying when you say 'propagandist counter- maneuver to challenge of your fixed doctrines'.
So i would not like to even attempt a reply. Would you be kind enough to explain what you mean.


You wrote in an earlier post:

["All that science logic and reason can do is explain things so we known, so we can understand. But what are we really understanding? What is it that we now know through this understanding?"]

What we increasingly know and understand through science/logic is the cosmos we exist in.

Your derogative attitude to this agnostic, non-invasive answer is, from the same post:

Quote: ["They know how to fight and conflict. The fact that there is so much conflict must mean that what is worth 'knowing' is worth fighting for."]

where you obviously ascribe negative qualities to your opposition, which it doesn't have. That your opposition throw 'truths' agressively your way, but where the situation is, that the only thing thrown your way is a denial of YOUR selfproclaimed 'absolute truths'.

'We' say: "We know part of a truth."

You say: "I know ALL of THE truth".

Quote from you from the same post demonstrating this: ["There is compassion and there is love. That is all."]

You don't bother to validate claims such as this, and express persecution-notions, when your self-appointed superior position of knowing 'absolute truth' is questioned.

So please: Validation, evidence and demonstrate understanding of 'objective', 'subjective', 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' (absolute) positions, if you want to avoid the label 'propagandist' attached to you.

This thread is an open invitation to look at the rational content of (agnostic) atheism. It's rational not to claim possession of 'absolute truth'. Either way.
edit on 4-6-2011 by bogomil because: missing words



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You bogomil have written this:
"And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there." End quote.

And i was inquiring into what you are saying, i would just like you to translate that sentence so i can understand.
I know there is a communication problem between the two of us and i would like to clarify your statement about my attitude.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


You bogomil have written this:
"And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there." End quote.

And i was inquiring into what you are saying, i would just like you to translate that sentence so i can understand.
I know there is a communication problem between the two of us and i would like to clarify your statement about my attitude.



Epistemology as a direction and endstation.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I have asked politely for you to help me to understand what you have written. You felt it important enough to write in the first instance, yet now it seems you do not want to communicate.

I asked what you mean when you say this:
"And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there." End quote.

And you answer with this:
Epistemology as a direction and endstation.

You are here to conflict.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


"Epistemology as a direction and endstation."

Knowing is the direction and the endstation.

God is knowing.

God only knows. That's all it does.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


I have asked politely for you to help me to understand what you have written. You felt it important enough to write in the first instance, yet now it seems you do not want to communicate.

I asked what you mean when you say this:
"And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there." End quote.

And you answer with this:
Epistemology as a direction and endstation.


You are here to conflict.



How did you get from an offer of epistemology to conflict-provocation?

Quote from the post before: ["God is knowing. God only knows. That's all it does."]

Postulate.
edit on 4-6-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Again i will ask politely for clarification on what was meant by this statement:
"And I see your attitude as a propagandist counter-maneuver to the challenge of your fixed doctrines. Dig as deep as you like. I'll meet you there." End quote.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I don't understand how 'part of the truth' can be put under the heading of Truth.
To me truth is complete and whole. I wouldn't like to think that people stand in court and swear to tell 'part of the truth'. But as humans that is all we will ever beable to tell. 'Part of the truth'.
The whole truth, the complete truth can be known. However, it can not be told!!



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by A Question
 


Does love need to be understood? Can love be understood?
We do not need to learn to love.
We just need to stop fighting.
We do not need to teach love.
Love is what we are.
This will be realized when we stop looking for reasons and explanations.

When it is realized that there is only one 'thing', there will be nothing left to know.
You will see that you are all of it.


Dear Itisnowagain,

I wish to be understood, don't you? The more we define ourselves in truth, the more we can be loved and understood, these are good things. Not to live a life of lies and conformity, to accept ourselves as we are and others as they are. There is not only one thing or one, I am free to be me and you are free to be you.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by A Question
 


That is what we do, try to understand. We look 'out there' and try to understand the way of the world. It all leads back to us in the end though.
There is only your field of experience in the end. You will never know anything but this (this living breathing moment).
I know that no one will understand me. I know that i will never understand anyone else.
Because i know this, i don't expect anything.
I know that i don't know anything and i know no one else does.
So what the heck.
If we could only see each other as scared, lost children (and we are) then we may well see ourselves, but we don't see that when we look 'out there' because they like us are wearing masks.
Take your mask off and the mask will fall off the 'others'.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by A Question
 


There is no need to look for love when the love is found to be an ever present field.

youtu.be...



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by A Question
 


There is no need to look for love when the love is found to be an ever present field.

youtu.be...


Dear Itisnowagain,

I like love, it is a good place to start, but start with courage and try to know others as best you can, not knowing completely should not hinder us, imperfection is just reality, don't give up on knowing better, on relationship, that is the constant knowing better of others.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Why do we do anything though? Why love others, so they won't leave us?
Is there not a constant background anxiety attatched to this type of love? This love has an opposite, fear. However they both appear because one can not be had without the other.

Unconditional love, the universal love, consciousness already knows love, it is love.
There is no one who can give you this love, although we believe there is another half to us somewhere.
We may think we have found the other half to complete us but they disappoint us. They are not the one.

You are the one.
You are already complete.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["I don't understand how 'part of the truth' can be put under the heading of Truth."]

I haven't put 'part of a truth' under the heading of Truth.

Quote: ["To me truth is complete and whole."]

So: "THIS side of the house I can see is green. I can't say about the other sides" is a worthless statement?

Quote: ["I wouldn't like to think that people stand in court and swear to tell 'part of the truth'."]

Courts are not the place to look for logic, science or philosophical arguments. They are about legal matters.

Quote: ["The whole truth, the complete truth can be known."]

Apparantly we're back to your recurring claims of some 'special' insight, above what the rest of us possess. Validate this claim, please.

Quote: ["["However, it can not be told!!"]

So you can only mysteriously hint at it, and we have to take your words on it?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



All of your posts are about 'you' and 'me'. Not me personally, others in general. The 'them and us' attitude.
You believe in matter, material, 'things', objects.
Where there is more than one there will be conflict.

No one has to take anyones word for anything.
If you don't feel it, it is ok, you will before you die.


I am not a thing, not an object.
There are no objects as such, just one unified feild.
All there is, is this.




edit on 4-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["You believe in matter, material, 'things', objects."]

Try to read the recent communication between A_a_a and me on this thread, instead of jumping in at a late point; obviously with no ideas of what has been said, or what I stand for.




top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join