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.

 

Agnosticism: The intelligent default belief setting.

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by PrimalRed
 
A zen buddhist would never claim that


None of us will ever know the true nature of reality and it's origins. The best we can manage is to chip away at it using science and reason. Religion of any sort is a kind of cowardice in my opinion. It requires far more courage to come to the realization that we are nothing more than the product of chance in an indifferent universe than it does to blindly take comfort in myths and lies.
edit on 9-12-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)


You have to remember though, we are just humans, we understand nothing compared to the whole picture, we never will, how do we as humans know that our reality is even real in the first place?




posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TylerDurden2U
 

I was watching a clip of Comunity can't seem to find it but one of the caracters said he was Agnostic. An other replied- "Aaah! The lazy man's athiest." It cracked me up.



posted on Dec, 9 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Dear Atzil321,

Thank you for responding so gently to my post which was not, perhaps, as polite as it could have been. Please allow me to try again, now that I have a better understanding of your position.

I admire your faith in science, but I still believe you are asking too much of it. Science won't discover the cause for the universe. Not in this generation or the next, or in any generation. It can't. It is as incapable of it as a man is of being his own great-grandfather.

The scientific method uses experiments and observations. How will you set up an experiment which begins as an entirely empty infinite space, with no energy, matter, force, anything? That's what you would need as a starting point. If you say "it," whatever "it" is, comes from a parallel universe, then you have to explain the parallel universe. This is not a question that science will ever be able to solve, no matter how much "faith" people put into the idea that someday it will.


One other area I'd like to touch on in this post is morals. If I understand you, all humanity has the same set of morals and those morals are the ones which insure our specie's survival.

I have four areas of concern:

1) Obviously, these morals must have changed over time. There was a time in the last thousand years when people needed to have as many children as possible to keep the family alive. If we did that now we'd have serious population problems. Morals don't seem to be hardwired in your description, but changing and adaptable.

2) The highest good, the most moral act, is one that insures you and others survive. Consider a murderer who has killed once, in an incredibly rare circumstance, who knows to a certainty that he will never kill again. Society believes that the death was accidental. Does he turn himself in and give up the chance to father children? Does he flip a coin to decide because society will keep going either way? What is "morally" correct?

3) Do people have a choice in recognizing something as morally good? By that I mean is morality something the same for all people because it's hardwired in? Or if it changes, could you explain how everyone "gets the memo," so to speak that its time to change morality? Perhaps its taught by a society's most moral? If so who decides who the teachers are?

4) How did we decide that survival of the species is the highest good? Where did we get the idea that there is no more noble activity than staying alive? If we have no choice but to believe it, then morality has changed it's definition so drastically that we need another word. It is not a moral act to do something you "have" to do, morality involves choosing. Who, then, teaches us morality?

Again, many thanks for taking the time to write to me. I admire the work you put into your response.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Atzil321,

Thank you for responding so gently to my post which was not, perhaps, as polite as it could have been. Please allow me to try again, now that I have a better understanding of your position.

I admire your faith in science, but I still believe you are asking too much of it. Science won't discover the cause for the universe. Not in this generation or the next, or in any generation. It can't. It is as incapable of it as a man is of being his own great-grandfather.

The scientific method uses experiments and observations. How will you set up an experiment which begins as an entirely empty infinite space, with no energy, matter, force, anything? That's what you would need as a starting point. If you say "it," whatever "it" is, comes from a parallel universe, then you have to explain the parallel universe. This is not a question that science will ever be able to solve, no matter how much "faith" people put into the idea that someday it will.


One other area I'd like to touch on in this post is morals. If I understand you, all humanity has the same set of morals and those morals are the ones which insure our specie's survival.

I have four areas of concern:

1) Obviously, these morals must have changed over time. There was a time in the last thousand years when people needed to have as many children as possible to keep the family alive. If we did that now we'd have serious population problems. Morals don't seem to be hardwired in your description, but changing and adaptable.

2) The highest good, the most moral act, is one that insures you and others survive. Consider a murderer who has killed once, in an incredibly rare circumstance, who knows to a certainty that he will never kill again. Society believes that the death was accidental. Does he turn himself in and give up the chance to father children? Does he flip a coin to decide because society will keep going either way? What is "morally" correct?

3) Do people have a choice in recognizing something as morally good? By that I mean is morality something the same for all people because it's hardwired in? Or if it changes, could you explain how everyone "gets the memo," so to speak that its time to change morality? Perhaps its taught by a society's most moral? If so who decides who the teachers are?

4) How did we decide that survival of the species is the highest good? Where did we get the idea that there is no more noble activity than staying alive? If we have no choice but to believe it, then morality has changed it's definition so drastically that we need another word. It is not a moral act to do something you "have" to do, morality involves choosing. Who, then, teaches us morality?

Again, many thanks for taking the time to write to me. I admire the work you put into your response.

With respect,
Charles1952




Food for thought and then some.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


Dear mandroids,

Thank you for your very kind words. Two questions (at least) have bothered man from the earliest days (right after "Can I eat that?") Is there a God? and "How should I behave?

Everyone has to find their own answer. Let me rephrase that. Everyone has to find their own answer. I don't see how anyone can be faced with the greatest questions of all time and not set out to find the answers as their foremost task.

If something I write turns out to have been any use to you or anyone else, I'll dance all day for joy.

Thank you again, very much.

With respect,
Charles 1952



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


To me, entertaining the idea of a big man in the sky (or a single entity of any kind) who created everything and watches over us, only so, at some time in the future, he can punish us or reward us for how we have behaved.... DOESN'T sound intelligent to me.

GOD is not a man, he created us to be his companions, he loved us enough to give us the free will to choose to be with him or not, your "punishment" is getting what you choose. You choose not to have GOD you also do not get what he encompasses,,, love, hope, compassion, joy to name a few. Sounds like hell doesn't it!



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Is it possible? Sure. Anything is possible, but on the subject of religion, to entertain the idea of this story is right up there with entertaining the possibility that a blue fairy princess flies around at night making sure the trees all grow straight and tall... It's just something that makes no logical sense...
It could be the mythology which is hard to take.
There may be a non-mythological way to explain it.
What if there just was this universe which somehow came into existence and part of what this universe ended up as are spiritual beings of various magnitudes of persistence. The definition of God may be an eternal spirit which persists as a single unique individual from the beginning of there even being spiritual beings.
Suppose this entity knows that there is a factor responsible for this ability to persist that is directly related to a particular quality of the spirit essence that makes it what it is.
Suppose there is a spiritual analog to a physical black hole where the corrupted spirits go to be recycled into new souls. The personal identity of the previous owner of that soul is forever lost as that spiritual substance is designated for the use by a fully new unique individual. This process exists, and continues to operate regardless of the wishes of the "god" but is an integral part of the normal operation of the universe as it exists.
Since this eternal persistent "god" entity is by virtue of its long life and the "purity" of its nature, is what we would call, good, then it has compassion for its fellow spirit beings and wants to share its knowledge of how best to avoid the spiritual black hole of self identity.


edit on 13-12-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join