Rant on Theories, Laws & Misconceptions Options

[Supersprynt]

Thats another misconception: Atheist/Agnostic peoples have no moral standards.

I believe I have very high moral standards. Most of them instilled from my parents, and of course as you gain life experience you change and modify them. Point being, there are equally as many immoral "religious" people as there are moral "unreligious" people.

Religion does not = morality.
And atheism/agnosticism doesn't = immorality.

This maybe obvious but sometimes it needs to be put in b/w.

[Fastbird]

This is just my personal views.

Religion is nothing more than a man-made creation to give man something to believe in. The majority of men are people who are compelled for one reason or another with the need to believe in a higher power, be it for personal security or whatever. Look at history though. Religions have come and gone. Only the truly blind are the ones who think that "their" god is the only higher being and that said being has been around forever. Religion gives people something to believe in, but sadly, also gives people (in their minds) justification for war. Take away religion and 75% of the conflicts in history go away.

Why not put aside all traces of organized religion and look in a different view. The possibility that there is a higher being whom created or influenced VIA evolution??

Evolution is a scientific fact, there's no denying that. Being a complete atheist is along the lines of being a die-hard religious person to me though. I personally feel that it's just not that cut and dry. Agnostic is the way to go for me. Not an ounce of belief in organized religion, but open to the possibility that there is something higher and more mystifing going on.

[saleeka]

For the sake of argument, I will assume that "experience life that I have at this moment to the fullest" means "experience everything I can". This may not be what you intendend.

Also, don't be so judgmental to think that living by a moral code somehow limits the life experience. I would argue that the most self-actualized people have a very high set of personal standards about what they will or will not participate in. On the other hand, it is my experience that those that do not set boundaries have lives that are often a mess.

What I mean by living life at this moment to it's fullest is that I'm not going to try to "do the right things" to obtain any sort of afterlife. Yes there could be something after this life here on earth, but there also may not be. Therefore, I'll stick to what I know and try to make the most of the time that I currently have here. I will also say that I'm a bit perplexed to understand how what I said translated into a general disliking for those who have "moral" values. Morals is such a loaded word, because it means different things to different people, but making a conscious effort to not negatively impact other's lives I feel is a pretty high moral standard to hold yourself to. I really feel that most people have such a misconception or complete lack of understanding what it means to be Agnostic sometimes...

What I have always found so interesting about religion is that almost every major religious doctrine can be boiled down into one main core belief: Treat others the way you want to be treated. I can relate to that more than anything else I've pulled out of my Christian upbringing, but you don't necessarily need to be Christian to hold that thought.

This post has been edited by saleeka: Feb 28, 2007 - 1:40 PM

[jgreening]

What I mean by living life at this moment to it's fullest is that I'm not going to try to "do the right things" to obtain any sort of afterlife. Yes there could be something after this life here on earth, but there also may not be. Therefore, I'll stick to what I know and try to make the most of the time that I currently have here. I will also say that I'm a bit perplexed to understand how what I said translated into a general disliking for those who have "moral" values. Morals is such a loaded word, because it means different things to different people, but making a conscious effort to not negatively impact other's lives I feel is a pretty high moral standard to hold yourself to. I really feel that most people have such a misconception or complete lack of understanding what it means to be Agnostic sometimes...

What I have always found so interesting about religion is that almost every major religious doctrine can be boiled down into one main core belief: Treat others the way you want to be treated. I can relate to that more than anything else I've pulled out of my Christian upbringing, but you don't necessarily need to be Christian to hold that thought.

My understanding of the definition of agnosticism is the proposition that people cannot know the answers to these metaphysical questions. The problem in the definition is how a person defines the word "know". If you define it to mean "scientific knowledge" or "knowledge based upon deductive logic", then anyone who is not an agnostic would be ignorant. I suspect that agnostic refers to people who do not have beliefs about such things. Since I do have firmly held beliefs, I no longer consider myself agnostic.

Also, I never once suggested that non-religious people were amoral or without standards. I only made the point that those without such personal standards (based on religion or something else like secular humanism) often have lives that are completely messed up.

This post has been edited by jgreening: Feb 28, 2007 - 3:22 PM

[jgreening]

I'm a bit perplexed to understand how what I said translated into a general disliking for those who have "moral" values.

You said this:

I am too selfish to commit to any set of rules or train of thought that does not allow me to experience the life that I have at this moment to it's fullest

I would say that this implies if it looks or feels good, people should do it. Again, you may not have meant that. However, some people absolutely believe in that proposition. My point was that people can live by a set of principles whereby they personally decide to limit their experiences for those principles (religious or not) and still live a fulfilling life - I would argue even more so.

[cnelson]

the ONLY problem i have with athemism.. some of my friends are.. i'm not. (and keep in mind, i know most people aren't like this) But whenever god comes up, or anything to do with god they just start laughing and making fun of it, and say some pretty bad stuff.. now its fine to not believe in a god, its another thing to just be an asshole about it. (These are not friends i hangout with by choice)

[hitcachi]

im just waiting till 2012

You think the Aztec calender is right? One thing is for sure, they have been right about alot of things and we have borrowed heavily from it already.

[x_itchy_b_x]

eh its interesting thats for sure.

[Supersprynt]

the ONLY problem i have with athemism.. some of my friends are.. i'm not. (and keep in mind, i know most people aren't like this) But whenever god comes up, or anything to do with god they just start laughing and making fun of it, and say some pretty bad stuff.. now its fine to not believe in a god, its another thing to just be an asshole about it. (These are not friends i hangout with by choice)

You should hear some of the things that are said about atheists by christian "authorities."



unrelated:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/m...eptions_faq.php

This post has been edited by Supersprynt: Mar 14, 2007 - 12:34 AM

[carb0n_f1b3r]

man i love you guys...i havent been on this site in soooo long..good topic.

ok so before we all get our panties in a bind lets go over some basics..

science/religion=fact?
lets see


Main Entry:
fact
Pronunciation:
\ˈfakt\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date:
15th century

1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> archaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact: in truth
(courtesy of M-W.com)

so what does this mean?...A fact is an occurrence that is objective (or provable with out bias)

ok, now.. what is a science fact?

In science a fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. Some scholars in the philosophy of science question whether scientific facts are truly objective or are always "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others as well pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires some presupposition about the facts themselves.[citation needed] In the field of science studies, "scientific facts" are generally seen as entities which exist within complex social structures of trust, accreditation, institutions, and individual practices.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science)

hmm... so why such an emphasis (or special attention paid to a certain aspect of a subject) on presupposition (or to have bias prior to actually knowing)

Its all because of another little term called intellectual honesty(or rigour)... its not that cheat sheet you cram in your pocket before a test

An attempted short definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied. This is a test of consistency, over cases, and to individuals or institutions (including the speaker, the speaker's country and so on). Consistency can be at odds here with a forgiving attitude, adaptability, and the need to take precedent with a pinch of salt.... In relation to itellectual Honesty; Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely. It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate, if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty)

ok..lets see what this says
"definition of intellectual rigour might be that no suspicion of double standard be allowed: uniform principles should be applied. This is a test of consistency, over cases, and to individuals or institutions

just read the bold..easy enough..a test of consistency over cases people or institutions

and the next part about rigour

keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence. For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely

in other words keeping your beliefs about what you know in proportion to your evidence and continually questioning those assumptions about what you think you know, not just trying to make them apply in every case..

and finally the last bit..

It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate (a debate as we seem to be in now), if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises

no one can be completely unbiased...

science is no fact...it was never meant to be a fact.. going through and picking off every little misconception (or misunderstanding) in this thread but it seemed to be useless pearls casted(or a waste of time) but if someone can understand this concept its worth while to me\

and now its [font=Arial Black][size=4][color=#FF0000]RELIGIONS TURN...

your beliefs... its surprising how many times people become so emotional when this kind of thing shows up because in another conversation with a different setting people can become really objective with religion(or a non-emotional conversation religion especially during study..) when they feel as if someone is disgracing God in some way though the urge to defend what you know to be true is intense, but judaeo-christian philosophy has the same kind of safe guard as science blind faith is not faith but an emotional response to love. the bible does not teach blind faith as necessary for anything also do not put God in a bottle hes God... if he wanted to through some dinosaur bones in the ground he can by what ever method he wants to.. if God is God he could have made the earth 4.5 billion years old when he created it ... maybe to communicate some how or who knows just realize that you do not... (Job)

dont just read but study HEBREWS

its like the we get all upset with each other for the same reasons religious people feel as if science some how dishonors what they have time tested to be true or a fact then take up in defense of God eventually to the point of trying to assume his throne....(see vid)

in doing so hurting the opportunities to win over hearts and some of the brightest minds on the face of the planet

im not done ill be back!

[Supersprynt]

Whats your point?

[carb0n_f1b3r]

basically that the two philosophies come from the same beginnings ever wonder why you adorn that silly hat and robe during the graduation ceremony? educate yourself on the origins of academia


so in summary

1. both science and theology are issues of debate because the facts each utilize are qualifications of numerous similar observations
2. these observations both try and explain phenomena , to a certain degree, and different aspects of the occurrence
3.Both science and religion are faith based ever taken quantum physics? (interpretation and controversy)
granted quantum mechanics is at the forefront of science theory but it displays the often overlooked metaphysical undertones in science
4. neither of the philosophies rely on blind faith.. they both have method in the madness based upon the presumptions of defined facts
5. whether science minded or religiously driven the point has always been to come up with answers, many times the conflict only lies in the motivation for the question when the answers differ. Do psychologists and sociologists have arguments over human motivational factors sure. Both however can be right even when their POV's are night and day from each other.
6. The chronic issue flares when one side or the other declares a irrefutable stance in their method.. this happens in every philosophy but those who do it are pushed to the way side by their peers for a lack of intellectual honesty .... you cannot know everything with out omnipotence
7. Lastly to set an example..because everyone wants to know and when we think we know we wanna be right about it... faux pompous
intellectuals will through fact after fact in the face of someone who disagrees to prove what? that they are right? unfortunately thats not the case... whether on one side or the other of a debate critically minded individuals should see the relevance of both arguments...

intellect is not a devise to subjugate but should be used to educate people... then allow them to make their own interpretation. Those who throw around intellectual clout generally are only trying to fulfill some egocentric deficiency in their view of themselves. rationally keep this in mind when the urge to rant on theories laws and even misconceptions

oh and you wanna know what life is all about?

[saleeka]

Those who throw around intellectual clout generally are only trying to fulfill some egocentric deficiency in their view of themselves. rationally keep this in mind when the urge to rant

I hate to point this out seeing as I'm usually pretty passive, but before you expcet everyone to read the dictionary for 45 minutes to grasp what you just said, mabey you should learn a lesson from yourself... You make a great point, imo, but seemingly only to those who are already on "that" level

[carb0n_f1b3r]

Those who throw around intellectual clout generally are only trying to fulfill some egocentric deficiency in their view of themselves. rationally keep this in mind when the urge to rant <a href="http://www.break.com/index/elmo_releases_sex_tape.html" target="_blank"></a>

I hate to point this out seeing as I'm usually pretty passive, but before you expcet everyone to read the dictionary for 45 minutes to grasp what you just said, mabey you should learn a lesson from yourself... You make a great point, imo, but seemingly only to those who are already on "that" level

yeah man i dig what your sayin.. and thats why i feel that way because i'll catch myself doing it too.. but its bad.. and i didnt really expect anyone to go through all that only meant to catch the attention of those on the up with argumentative composition and at the same time give others some intellectual ammo of their own while still makin my point..

[Supersprynt]

You wrote all that so you could try to put theology in the same playing field as science?

[carb0n_f1b3r]

*sigh no.....